The ground burnt to a crisp and people burning in the heat, blood every where and homeless people roaming the streets. This is REAL nuclear war and i dont know about you but when im playing i have a deep moral struggle. A nuke comes hurtling down on Lenningrad and i feel so very guilty.
If real nuclear war was underway what would be the consequences? I mean scientificly and socially. What would happen to the crops, agriculture and animals?
real nuclear war!
Moderator: Defcon moderators
-
Protect and survive
- level1
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:51 pm
- Location: London in a mushroom cloud
I personally think that man would survive, there are enough places in Africa and Central/South America that wouldn't be hit that I think man could eek things out. It would certainly be messy, and it might take centuries or more to get back to where we are now, but I think it could be survivable.
I would prefer not to find out if I'm right.
I would prefer not to find out if I'm right.
-
Protect and survive
- level1
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:51 pm
- Location: London in a mushroom cloud
Protect and survive wrote:Are you nuts? We couldent survive we'd be fucked. :roll:
If you are going to give people the option of selecting various possibilities, then it is incumbent upon you respect the fact that other people have such differing opinions. As stated above, if you already knew the answer, why did you ask the question, you twit?
xander
-
All American Mobster
- level4
- Posts: 751
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:46 pm
- Location: Upland, CA
- Contact:
Yea, i agree with Feud on this one.
It also may depend: hydrogen bomb or atom? a hydrogen bomb is 1000 times more powerful than an atom bomb, and they are more destructive when they are blown up in the sky.
There would be a huge death toll: for every one person who dies by the blast another four would be killed by the radiation.
Also many people may seek refuge in out-of-the-way places. For example, a boat in the USA might head for, say, Iceland, or move more north in Canada.
But of course if the bombs are launched from missles, people may have a limited ammount of time to escape or build a fallout shelter... bla bla bla
Yet (im sorry im still going. i should write a book) if the nation was on the verge of a nuclear war (Hint: THE COLD WAR!!!) people may have been preparing for it.
So yes I definently agree people would survive, the damage would be absolutely devastating, and the death toll, unbearable.
-$tanley
It also may depend: hydrogen bomb or atom? a hydrogen bomb is 1000 times more powerful than an atom bomb, and they are more destructive when they are blown up in the sky.
There would be a huge death toll: for every one person who dies by the blast another four would be killed by the radiation.
Also many people may seek refuge in out-of-the-way places. For example, a boat in the USA might head for, say, Iceland, or move more north in Canada.
But of course if the bombs are launched from missles, people may have a limited ammount of time to escape or build a fallout shelter... bla bla bla
Yet (im sorry im still going. i should write a book) if the nation was on the verge of a nuclear war (Hint: THE COLD WAR!!!) people may have been preparing for it.
So yes I definently agree people would survive, the damage would be absolutely devastating, and the death toll, unbearable.
-$tanley
Depends how you define a real nuclear war... if it's simply between two superpowers, and played on a strategic and not genocidal level, there would be some adverse effects on the world-wide *sphere, but not much - however, even a war between two superpowers could spell the end of a breathable atmosphere for millennia if they exhausted their supplies... Both Russia and the USA have enough nukes to effectively purge the planet of human civilisation. I'm sure some people would survive in underground bunkers, but it would probably be the end of society as we know it if there were many fusion detonations at high altitude... especially if Russia ever built any of those fission-fusion-fission 200MT ones they were so reluctant to test. :/
Protect and survive wrote:Are you nuts? We couldent survive we'd be fucked.
Listen Astroboy, when you kicked off your time on this forum by making a complete idiot of yourself through your nonsensical postings and utter disregard for any form of forum etiquette, I tried to be nice and helpful in hopes that you would figure things and perhaps become a productive member of this forum.
If you disagree with me then fine, it's no skin off my back as it's already been well established that my opinions are normally in the minority on these forums, and one more person disagreeing isn't going to shatter my outlook on life. But when you ask for an opinion on a matter, and your reply to an honest and polite response is to dismiss the opinion in such a manner as to call its legitimacy as an opinion into question, you are just being a jerk. Nobody likes jerks.
-
All American Mobster
- level4
- Posts: 751
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:46 pm
- Location: Upland, CA
- Contact:
-
homelessdiver
- level0
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:24 am
- Location: Boracay
- Contact:
In an actual nuke war, yes, humans will survive in limited capacity. But thats just war with adversaries. It is possible to wipe out humans although that would have to be a direct attempt to do so. One would need to focus on the planet instead of population targets. Jet streams and the ocean current would be the main factors. It would take some planning to put that much irradiated material in the air to kill off people in a few generation for some seriously remote areas that are to sparsely populated to waste a nuke on directly, like the north.
Example of that planning: One could irradiate much of Alaska and the Aleutian chain by the warm currents coming from Japan. But those currents are largely diverted by the mountain range that starts just east of Anchorage so depending much of the Yukon in Canada would be slow to receive it...and those people are fully self sufficient. Depending on the time of the year, it would carry up north to Fairbanks but not as far as Barrow. Something detonated directly in the deadzone of Yukon would be carried up north and precipitate out over the polar region. The north pole is really a fairly dirty area, unlike the south pole. However, aside from research stations, Antarctica is not populated and cannot be self-sufficient thru the winters, even at the Palmer station which is just outside the arctic circle.
Northern siberia would have the problem of gaining precipitation from other areas but the heaviest of these are in areas that people generally dont settle in.
One of the fastest clearing areas will be at 30 degrees Lat in both the northern and souther hemispheres where the subtropical high winds push everything either to the poles (precipitation/filtering) or to the Intertropical Convergence Zone around the equator where the common bands of storms and rain will also clear the air. Yes, they will still be bringing in radiation but those are the main driving effects of the globe, everything else is related to terrain or ocean currents.
Central Africa has the highest average temperatures and the least precipitation. Because the heated area is sooooo large, most of the convective currents rise up and move back out to sea long before they get to the interior....making it a fairly safe place against fallout, assuming it wasnt a target.
...not that I've given this any thought or anything....
Example of that planning: One could irradiate much of Alaska and the Aleutian chain by the warm currents coming from Japan. But those currents are largely diverted by the mountain range that starts just east of Anchorage so depending much of the Yukon in Canada would be slow to receive it...and those people are fully self sufficient. Depending on the time of the year, it would carry up north to Fairbanks but not as far as Barrow. Something detonated directly in the deadzone of Yukon would be carried up north and precipitate out over the polar region. The north pole is really a fairly dirty area, unlike the south pole. However, aside from research stations, Antarctica is not populated and cannot be self-sufficient thru the winters, even at the Palmer station which is just outside the arctic circle.
Northern siberia would have the problem of gaining precipitation from other areas but the heaviest of these are in areas that people generally dont settle in.
One of the fastest clearing areas will be at 30 degrees Lat in both the northern and souther hemispheres where the subtropical high winds push everything either to the poles (precipitation/filtering) or to the Intertropical Convergence Zone around the equator where the common bands of storms and rain will also clear the air. Yes, they will still be bringing in radiation but those are the main driving effects of the globe, everything else is related to terrain or ocean currents.
Central Africa has the highest average temperatures and the least precipitation. Because the heated area is sooooo large, most of the convective currents rise up and move back out to sea long before they get to the interior....making it a fairly safe place against fallout, assuming it wasnt a target.
...not that I've given this any thought or anything....
-
All American Mobster
- level4
- Posts: 751
- Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:46 pm
- Location: Upland, CA
- Contact:
-
NeoThermic
- Introversion Staff
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
- Location: ::1
- Contact:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests