Nuclear WAR - like... right now?

Totally!

I bet they mutate ladybugs into alligators that shoot laser beams out of their eyes.

Imbecile.
You need to detect sarcasm.

It would be nice to know what happens with a population after a nuclear war. They tested the thing twice, but those people never saw it coming.
 
It would be nice to know what happens with a population after a nuclear war.

Gee whiz, could it be immediate death by incineration? Slower death by radiation sickness? MYSTARY!

They tested the thing twice, but those people never saw it coming

"Sorry, would you gooks mind standing still for a while? We want to test a thermonuclear device on your city, just to see what happens to the population after nuclear war"

And no. Nuclear weapon effects were, as you delicately label it "tested" not only on the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The effects of radioactive fallout and blast radiation were studied, amongst others, on WW2 veterans and islanders on the Pacific. The first brushed off fallout off their clothes like dust, the second had their kids play with radioactive snow after the wind changed.

See, there weren't just two nuclear explosions during the course of the 20th century. Different governments had a wide 'test range' on their effects.

If you meant to test "what would happen to a population after a nuclear war", full-scale...
 
Gee whiz, could it be immediate death by incineration? Slower death by radiation sickness? MYSTARY!

Well, if i asked about the population after the war, it means i am referring to the part that didn't get incinerated. Some fallout booklets and survival books i've read said that nuclear war is survivable. Of course, those things could be just to boost morale...
 
Nah. I've done a lot of research on this subject (I'm writing a post-nuclear war novel), and they're completely survivable, provided you're no where near the explosions. As long as you avoid the radiation you don't have much to worry about.

Which isn't to say that it wouldn't be hideously scary while you're covered up in your basement with as much between you and the outside world as possible for about two weeks straight, but provided you have good shelter and can put a ton of shit between you and the fallout, you'd be, probably, okay.

Scarier would be what happens to society after that, when everybody is killing each other for what few scraps people have left over. It's really not the nukes you have to be afraid of, it's the people.
 
Nukes do not (or may not necessarily) destroy the entire population of a nation, but can in fact destroy nations, even if a great portion of the population survives the blast and subsequent radiation fallout.

That is why a Fallout like universe is so feasible, even without the Vaults.

EDIT: (a little research)

Hiroshima, population at the time of the attack: approximately 255,000.

Post-attack casualties: approximately 70,000 people killed due to immediate effects of the blast. Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 range from 90,000 to 140,000, due to burns, radiation and related disease, aggravated by lack of medical resources. Some estimates state up to 200,000 had died by 1950, due to cancer and other long-term effects.

Conclusion: 55,000 survived the bomb blast, radiation and related disease, cancer and long-term effects. And this considering they had absolutely no preparation on how to coup with a nuclear attack, including but not limited to: proper shelter and education or knowledge about nuclear bomb effect and the effects of nuclear fallout.

I think this give us a good comparing point even if results of a nuclear attack in other situations may vary in very different ways.

(Source: Wikipedia)
 
Yes. About blasts. WW2 bombs are one thing, ICBM's with multiple two-megaton MIRV's are another.
 
Yes, I already said that "results of a nuclear attack in other situations may vary in very different ways", unfortunately (of fortunately) we have no way of knowing exactly what the effects of ICBM's with multiple two-megaton MIRV's are in an actual papulation of a city, and much less in a nation wide, or even world wide scale.

Although the chances of more and more of population killed are much greater, we must not forget that the entire population of a nation is not all concentrated in major cities, for example: The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 381,000 earlier in the war, but prior to the atomic bombing the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. Therefor in this case we have also saved some 126000 lives. As you can see there are many variables, you can't predict them all. So the chances of a number of people surviving a nuclear war are likely.
 
Good thing Brazil ins't a target. Even if we were, they would hit the big cities down south. All I have to do is to find somewhere safe to survive the Fallout.

Just curious: How much time it takes for the wind to go from the United States to Brazil? Someone know? If I get at least a day until Fallout comes, I can just call my parents and friends, find a suitable shelter, get ourselves some food and guns and run to the Fallout Shelter equiped.
 
Lt. Col. Gonzalez said:
Yes, I already said that "results of a nuclear attack in other situations may vary in very different ways", unfortunately (of fortunately) we have no way of knowing exactly what the effects of ICBM's with multiple two-megaton MIRV's are in an actual papulation of a city, and much less in a nation wide, or even world wide scale.

Although the chances of more and more of population killed are much greater, we must not forget that the entire population of a nation is not all concentrated in major cities, for example: The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 381,000 earlier in the war, but prior to the atomic bombing the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. Therefor in this case we have also saved some 126000 lives. As you can see there are many variables, you can't predict them all. So the chances of a number of people surviving a nuclear war are likely.

Not just likely, it's extremely likely unless you have enough bombs to literally blast everyone :P

Avoiding the radiation is not as hard as one might think!
 
Blakut said:
All a fallout shelter is is some way to keep fallout away from yourself. You don't need a bunker.

Fallout and hungry radioactive people!

*shamelessly steals Wooz's signature*

alignmentyl1.jpg
 
This is an excerpt of an early term paper I have been writing as a student of political science:


"3. Consequences of a nuclear war

The short- and long-term consequences of nuclear warfare are linked closely to each other, as the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed. This is even more obvious in a full scale nuclear war. It would take years or even decades to rebuild the buildings and resources that were destroyed within a few seconds during a nuclear war. The people that would be lost during the attack or following weeks because of the fallout couldn’t be demographically replaced for many generations. The political, social and economic changes which would definitely happen couldn’t be easily undone, too.
Other effects, that will occur months or years after the initial attack, build a category of their own. This includes somatic and genetic long-term damage as a result of the fallout and radioactive pollution. Furthermore changes of the physical environmental (that might change the whole ecological system) fall into this category. The ozone layer might be damaged by nuclear weapons, though it is not known how likely this event might be. On the other hand this might seriously impair the health of humans and animals and change the climate of the earth.

3.1. Casualties and aftermath of a full scale nuclear war

Theoretically a full scale nuclear war would lack any logic, because the mutual annihilation of the participating parties wouldn’t be acceptable for any of them. But the idea of a – limited nuclear war – was seriously considered with the rise of new strategies like “flexible response” . It is not possible to create a solid theoretically scenario of the world after a nuclear war up to today. Even if you want to get numbers of dead and wounded people you have to consider plenty variables like the extent of the war, terrain, population density, civil defence and so on. This might give the impression that it would be possible to calculate the exact numbers with the help of a mathematical equation. What works in theory doesn’t have to do so in reality as the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed earlier. Despite marginal technical differences the two bombs were quite similar but the human casualties they caused differed a lot. Fallout is a variable that’s even harder to estimate. Although the effects of the nuclear weapons used in Japan have been examined to great extent, a huge amount of uncertainty remained. How much more of uncertainty will be there in a hypothetical war?
A full scale nuclear war is considered to be a war where the entire nuclear arsenal brought into action. Although the nuclear arsenals of the USA and Russia have decreased since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the trend remained to improve the accuracy and to use smaller warheads with less detonation power. Obviously the possibility of a war between these two states is marginal today; current studies and underpinned estimates have been neglected. For that reason a scenario published by the American Office of Technology Assessment in the 1980s is going to be used to illustrate the effects of a nuclear war.
This fictitious war started with a massive Soviet nuclear attack of 6.500 megatons against the USA and a smaller retaliatory strike of 1.300 megatons by the US. By any means this wasn’t the whole nuclear arsenal of both states. The conditions of this scenario were considered realistic. Although the attacks were not explicitly aimed against cities, the majority of the centres of population with their inhabitants was killed. The number of the victims initially killed by the blast of explosion, heat, radiation and early fallout were calculated 165 million in the United States and up to 100 million in the USSR. In this scenario fallout occurred massively within and outside of the war waging countries, which led to a final death toll of 500 million people.
However one should always consider the fact that these numbers only cover the deaths caused by physical destruction of the nuclear weapons. It didn’t include unforeseeable after-effects like revolutionary turmoil, epidemics, malnutrition and armed clashes between rival groups. But even if this chaos would finally give way to some sort of settled life the damage done to the economy couldn’t be restored. Or as the OTA proclaimed: “… even the mere extend of such an attack would raise the question, if the USA would ever be able to reach its status as an organized, industrial and powerful country again.”
The likeliness of an attack on nuclear power plants as crucial centres for economic power in terms of energy production wasn’t considered either. Since weakening the economic strength of an opponent is one of the main objectives in war, and these plants power industrial facilities as well an attack seems to be quite possible. The great risk embedded in such an attack is especially dangerous for humans and the environment. Even if the power plant is hit by a small nuclear warhead the radioactivity contained in the plant would escape into the atmosphere by the mushroom cloud. This radioactivity is particularly harmful since its decay is longer than the decay of a warhead. Therefore huge areas would be contaminated long after the fallout of nuclear devices has sunk to a tolerable level. The fact that a military strike against a small amount of nuclear reactors in Europe would make large parts of the continent uninhabitable is even more disturbing.
Of course these numbers only calculate the victims in the USA and the former USSR. If Europe would have been hit by nuclear warheads this fictitious war would have cost 800 million lives as direct results of the bombs because of the high population density. Taking the high number of military forces deployed by both sides in Europe in this time such an attack would have been most likely. The number of immanent human casualties would have risen one third of the world population if Asiatic countries as China and Japan would have been included in the attacks.
Facing the high dependence of Third World countries, the devastation of the industrial states would have horrible consequences for them, even today. Since vital goods such as food, medicine and fertilizers would have disappeared from one second to the other horrible epidemics and famines would have been the result with an unpredictable but most likely high number of victims.
As it was mentioned before all these numbers are estimates with a lot of uncertainties. Only the fact that a total nuclear war on earth would change the human civilization drastically and that every state on earth would have to deal with the effects of such an attack, even the states that aren’t hit directly by nuclear weapons is disturbingly enough to question the sense behind such a war itself. How much higher will the uncertainties be as the ties of interdependence between the states grow stronger and expand?

3.2. Environmental effects

In contrast to the description of a full- scale nuclear war the description of the environmental effects isn’t that much dependent on theoretical assumptions. In this case most of the knowledge comes from atmospheric nuclear weapon test that were carried out by the USA and the Soviet Union until the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963 came into force. However France and China continued with atmospheric tests and other states continued their nuclear test programs underground. It is estimated that the total number of all kinds of nuclear tests performed until 1980 is approximately 1270.
Mostly fission bombs with an explosive power less than 1 kiloton were used. On the other hand the few thermonuclear weapons with strength up to 60 megatons made up the main part of the whole explosive power of nearly 300 megatons. If this power is compared to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and the damage it caused with “only” 12 kilotons it doesn’t become more understandable for the human mind.
The majority of the tests were performed in the north hemisphere. This also means that most of the radioactive fallout stayed there, too. It is assumed that the dose of internal and external radiation, that people received, was three times higher than in the southern hemisphere. Nearly 100.000 additional deaths by cancer might have been the result of these tests. A lot of criticism has been made on the way radioactivity was passed through the food chain to the human. If the critics prove right the risk and therefore the casualties might be considerably higher.
Ionizing radiation is harmful to any kind of organic organisms, although the sensitivity varies from species to species. Generally it can be said, that the higher the organism is developed, the higher it is sensitive towards it. If a biosphere would be contaminated with radiation, some animals and plants would be more damaged than others. A serious disruption of the ecological balance would be the result. This balance is harmed even more the more complex the biospheres are.
For example if a lot of birds would die the amount of insects would rise rapidly, because they are not as sensitive to radiation as birds are. Having lost their natural enemy, insects may have a huge impact on the environment. For example plants will be severely damaged and the number of disease-causing agents will rise extremely. If this is combined the destruction of the pharmaceutical industry huge epidemics will raise the number of victims even more.
Most of the wild animals will probably die because they will be exposed to fallout without any shelter. Even if they live underground they will probably die, because of the contaminated water and food. They might get the radiation sickness as well as humans, and it is possible that they become infertile as well.
Plants have a much higher resistance against radiation as animals have. High doses of radiation will eventually kill plants, too. Depending in how much they have evolved the plants might change in different ways. For example their ability to bloom might be reduced and delayed. If plants bloom to late their blooms might not be able to survive, thus whole species might be extinguished. Even if the radiation is not high enough to damage the plants, it is still quite possible that they assimilate the radiation through the soil. This would make them inedible and useless for the human feeding.
Especially the population of cities will have tremendous problems with their water and food supply. Most likely water pumps and pipelines will be destroyed by the bombs. Eventually the people will have to look for other water resources because of the lack of tap water. Rainwater will be contaminated by fallout and therefore undrinkable. The radiation dose would be reduced by water treatment facilities and letting the water stand for several weeks.
Food which has gone bad because of the fallout could be cleaned with pure fresh water. Three major problems emerge after a nuclear attack. The first is the lack of fresh water, which has been mentioned before. Secondly it is expected, that the majority of the radiation will be taken through the exposed leaves of young plants. In this case radiation would become a part of them and it couldn’t be just washed away with fresh water. These contaminated grazing lands would be dangerous for livestock as well. Lastly you shouldn’t underestimate the danger that comes for humans and wildlife from the natural food chain.
For example, herbivores would eat radioactive plant. These herbivores would fall victim to carnivores. Finally plants, herbivores as well as carnivores would die and disintegrate into the soil. Micro-organisms would transform the carcasses into humus. This way the radioactivity would come back into the farmland. The experience the USA made on the Bikini- Atoll confirms how hard it is to eliminate fallout particles even with extensive decontamination measures. "

This was an early draft, so please look over any grammar and spelling mistakes.

If you are interested I can give you a list of scientific literature that isn't too hard to read.
 
Well first of all I would take the arm off my shirt an uraninite on it I would then tie it to my head to protect me from radioactive dust. I would then if on the road i would drive away from the blast (if my car was still functional) till my full ran out. I would then find cave or building with a basement an hold up there with the supplys I keep in my car.

If at home I would grab my NBC suit an my respirator an get it on asap I would then seal my windows with ductape I would then move all caned food I have an water I have into a downstairs room under some think plywood flooring sheats I have in my living room in a arangment that would make a lean to type shelter with tape along the joints, Then I would sit under there with a clockwork radio an a clockwork torch for 5 days I would then secure all medical supplys, food, water ammunition, weapons that I can and make my way to RAF southport where there is a shelter / hardend aircraft hangers an then make long term plans.
 
Well first of all I would take the arm off my shirt an uraninite on it I would then tie it to my head to protect me from radioactive dust.

Why do you think that piss on your shirt on your head would protect you?

@iii

You're forgetting something: a full scale war would destroy the world. If it's not full scale (not all the missiles get launched, some are destroyed in flight) we might have a chance...

About Brazil. And Chile. And Antarctica. Wouldn't these places be safe? I mean, only Russia or China would want to target Chile. Aren't they out of range? How about Antarctica? Could you stay there safe and watch the fireworks (for real, aurora caused by high atmospheric blasts)?
 
The thing is, that those missles are armed in flight, so all the shit would have to fall somewhere if they are destroyed.....my country lies next to Russia, so we'd have a lot of mess here, plus most of it would go to the oceans and atmposphere. That means it would reach places far from the actual targets.
 
Ravager69 said:
The thing is, that those missles are armed in flight, so all the shit would have to fall somewhere if they are destroyed.....my country lies next to Russia, so we'd have a lot of mess here, plus most of it would go to the oceans and atmposphere. That means it would reach places far from the actual targets.

If by all that shit you mean unspent radioactive material? You mean like a grapefruit sized ball or plug....

Consider it's size and the size of your country. Even if it were turned to powder how much could it cover?
 
Blakut said:
Well first of all I would take the arm off my shirt an uraninite on it I would then tie it to my head to protect me from radioactive dust.

Why do you think that piss on your shirt on your head would protect you?

Simple to stop radioactive dust / particles from entering my lungs. I would use piss because drinking water will become a rare commodity in the next few days also it saved some canadian soldiers during ww1 from the first gass attack.
 
Gas and radiation are totally different things, Muff. On the one hand, you have a gas, which is made of a whole bunch of molecules of matter. Radiation is a whole lot smaller than that. It would possibly help against fallout, though, depending on the size of the stuff...
 
I am talking about fallout, I have had quite a few beers an it is imparing my thought to keyboard abilitys....
 
Simple to stop radioactive dust / particles from entering my lungs. I would use piss because drinking water will become a rare commodity in the next few days also it saved some canadian soldiers during ww1 from the first gass attack.

It's a different story. In ww1 they used chlorine gas for some time. quote from wikipedia:
It was thought to be even more effective to use urine rather than water, as the ammonia would neutralize the chlorine, but it is now known that ammonia and chlorine can produce toxic fumes (NH3 + Cl2 —> HCl + NH2Cl). Even if the chemistry had been correct, the amount of ammonia in human urine is extremely small. However, it was known at the time that chlorine reacted readily with urea (present in large amounts in urine) to form dichlorourea

The last thing you want is something wet on which the dust to cling to.
 
Back
Top