Safest place to be in the event of nuclear war?

mad muffin

If Indiana Jones taught me anything. It's inside a fridge.

123shooter

In serious reality the best place to be in the event of a nuclear war is directly under one of the first bombs to go off.

Because the reality of surviving and living after a nuclear war is a dire and miserable existence of lawlessness, disease, starvation, etc similar to living in Iron age times.........and not like surviving a zombie invasion and driving around like mad max.

There are a few extremely depressing films made in the 1980's when the last time we nearly blew the world up which show what a 'post nuclear war' life would be like.

One was called 'Threads' - 1984 but only clips of it appear on youtube...........the other was a Hollywood version:rolleyes::rolleyes: (not as good) called 'The day after' - 1983.

PucaMama

lazybones32 wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

What makes you think we will be spared fallout? And if we were society will still collapse because the rest of the world won't be spared.

Because detonating a warhead above a target allows for a larger area to be damaged and reduces the amount of particles that would be irradiated and sent high into the atmosphere, compared to a ground burst.
An exchange between 2 countries is more likely than everyone firing everything at each other. The superpowers don't want tactical exchanges - they wouldn't be superpowers afterwards. USA owes China too much to be nuked by them; USA needs China's money too much to nuke them and so on and so forth
Nukes aren't all tsar bomba's; each missile/rocket has a number of warheads set to a lower yield so 8 targets could be hit by 1 rocket (MIRV's) and they are configured to specific intentions, say, 1to knock out an industrial area, 1 to cripple a financial area like Wall St, 1 for a military airbase, 1to a missile silo etc; many low yield is better than a few big ones.

We would be spared fallout because there wouldn't be an awful amount created in an exchange. There have been over 2,000 detonations of nukes throughout the world. Vast majority of them have been on land. The world hasn't collapsed and we're not eating each others flesh or forgotten how to speak...

The world hasn't collapsed because the vast majority have been tests. I fully expect a full exchange between the US and all their enemies if it starts.

lazybones32

123shooter wrote: »

In serious reality the best place to be in the event of a nuclear war is directly under one of the first bombs to go off.

Because the reality of surviving and living after a nuclear war is a dire and miserable existence of lawlessness, disease, starvation, etc similar to living in Iron age times.........and not like surviving a zombie invasion and driving around like mad max.

There are a few extremely depressing films made in the 1980's when the last time we nearly blew the world up which show what a 'post nuclear war' life would be like.

One was called 'Threads' - 1984 but only clips of it appear on youtube...........the other was a Hollywood version:rolleyes::rolleyes: (not as good) called 'The day after' - 1983.

By Dawns Early Light is worth watching.
Failsafe is entertaining also. Watched George Clooney's remake, featuring some big names.
When the wind blows is animated and is on youtube.
There's a few more worth watching on yt.

123shooter

lazybones32 wrote: »

Because detonating a warhead above a target allows for a larger area to be damaged and reduces the amount of particles that would be irradiated and sent high into the atmosphere, compared to a ground burst.

Hydrogen bombs are heat weapons. They vapourise instantly most things below them.

Nukes aren't all tsar bomba's; each missile/rocket has a number of warheads set to a lower yield so 8 targets could be hit by 1 rocket (MIRV's) and they are configured to specific intentions, say, 1to knock out an industrial area, 1 to cripple a financial area like Wall St, 1 for a military airbase, 1to a missile silo etc; many low yield is better than a few big ones.

Wall st and most other financial institutions wouldn't exist after the first news broke of a nuclear war. It would be sell everything instantly. So no need to aim one at Wall st. But they never just aim one weapon at each target for the reasons of failure or it gets intercepted. Each target would have several war heads arriving on it.

We would be spared fallout because there wouldn't be an awful amount created in an exchange. There have been over 2,000 detonations of nukes throughout the world. Vast majority of them have been on land. The world hasn't collapsed and we're not eating each others flesh or forgotten how to speak...

But your land and therefore your food and possibly everything else would be contaminated to a certain degree so cancer and birth defects would rage just as after Chernobyl. Plus if Ireland was lucky to escape such you would be prime for invasion by other countries looking for food and water which is safe, and because you have never thought that you needed an armed force to protect yourself you wouldnt last long. In fact you would be completely disposable and possibly executed on sight to be replaced with the population of the invading force from their contaminated waste land...........far fetched but anything could happen......its war.:)

Lyle Lanley

Conspectus wrote: »

Fixed that for you.:)

A bug bear of mine. Calling them the Falklands is like sticking the extra letters in front of Derry.

hmmm

Southern Hemisphere. All the billionaires seem to be buying a bolthole in New Zealand.

testicles

This post has been deleted.

Blazer

Owryan wrote: »

Surely irish neutrality will save us, it'll be like a great be shield over our fair isle. It'll be powered by all the hot air from our looney left that keep invoking it

Sure the old iodine tablets will save us. No need to be wasting money on bunkers except for the politicians

4068ac1elhodqr

mad muffin wrote: »

If Indiana Jones taught me anything. It's inside a fridge.

A lead-lined walk-in fridge with reflective outer certainly isn't the worst idea. And a good place to store two essentials: clean water and kelp.

Wibbs

Lyle Lanley wrote: »

A bug bear of mine. Calling them the Falklands is like sticking the extra letters in front of Derry.

Meh, not really. It was uninhabited before Europeans found it so it wasn't stolen from any indigenous peoples and it's changed hands many times since. It was first discovered by a Brit, then the French go involved, then the Spanish, then the Brits again, then Argentina and back and forth we go. Getting het up over the name is just favouring one bunch of imperial muppets over another, or akin to being concerned about a bone two old dogs are fighting over.

Silane

The ISS would be a safe place, might even make for a good show.

123shooter

Wibbs wrote: »

Meh, not really. It was uninhabited before Europeans found it so it wasn't stolen from any indigenous peoples and it's changed hands many times since. It was first discovered by a Brit, then the French go involved, then the Spanish, then the Brits again, then Argentina and back and forth we go. Getting het up over the name is just favouring one bunch of imperial muppets over another, or akin to being concerned about a bone two old dogs are fighting over.

Not forgetting the Spanish invaded South America and disposed the native population including what is Argentina......but we must blame the Brits......or Trump.

lazybones32

123shooter wrote: »

Hydrogen bombs are heat weapons. They vapourise instantly most things below them.


Wall st and most other financial institutions wouldn't exist after the first news broke of a nuclear war. It would be sell everything instantly. So no need to aim one at Wall st. But they never just aim one weapon at each target for the reasons of failure or it gets intercepted. Each target would have several war heads arriving on it.


But your land and therefore your food and possibly everything else would be contaminated to a certain degree so cancer and birth defects would rage just as after Chernobyl. Plus if Ireland was lucky to escape such you would be prime for invasion by other countries looking for food and water which is safe, and because you have never thought that you needed an armed force to protect yourself you wouldnt last long. In fact you would be completely disposable and possibly executed on sight to be replaced with the population of the invading force from their contaminated waste land...........far fetched but anything could happen......its war.:)

There's a lot stronger than the H bomb out there now.
The point is, that to achieve maximum damage to a large area, an airburst is better than a groundburst. An airburst will send significantly less less irradiated particles higher into the atmosphere which can travel further and land elsewhere as fallout.

War is big business. Wall St and banking will thrive in times of war. If NYC was hit, and London, the physical documents and paperwork of large businesses based there would be incinerated, thereby wiping out the business as a legal entity and their records etc; massive implications in that respect.
The stock markets would fluctuate but seeing as land-based missiles take approx. 40 mins to reach destination, FTSE and Dow Jones wouldn't have a lot of time...submarine-based missiles can reach their targets a lot faster and there are subs off the coast of the USA. Civilians would get only a few minutes warning of imminent attack.

The land wouldn't be contaminated across the earth. In blast zones, yes, and in areas affected by the fallout. But air-bursts vastly reduce the contamination while still being devastatingly destructive.
The Russian Army have soldiers stationed around Chernobyl: they have rigourously tested the type of radiation (Cesium and Strontium) and are even growing and eating food there. There are only 3-4 types of fruit and veg that are unsafe to produce/consume.

Nuclear war wouldn't be as total as entertainment sources would have us believe; if evrry nuclear power declared war on each other and decided on mutually assured destruction, then yes, we could be looking at something like The Road but that isn't a realistic or likely outcome.

Zaph

Isabel Rich Snowstorm wrote: »

Technically: TrisanDaCunha±

± Minus: Language

The official language of Tristan da Cunha is English, so you'd probably be grand there.

B.A._Baracus

Threads scared the piss out of me too. Everyone should at least try to watch it.

Capt'n Midnight

There was a British family that were so worried about nuclear war they got as far away as they could. They arrived in the Falklands just in time for the Argentine invasion.

123shooter

lazybones32 wrote: »

There's a lot stronger than the H bomb out there now.
The point is, that to achieve maximum damage to a large area, an airburst is better than a groundburst. An airburst will send significantly less less irradiated particles higher into the atmosphere which can travel further and land elsewhere as fallout.

Yeah yeah yeah ...........but most high profile targets are deep underground so you aint gonna fry anything at 10,000ft when its a mile underground are you? So multiple ground blasts are a certainty.

War is big business. Wall St and banking will thrive in times of war. If NYC was hit, and London, the physical documents and paperwork of large businesses based there would be incinerated, thereby wiping out the business as a legal entity and their records etc; massive implications in that respect.
The stock markets would fluctuate but seeing as land-based missiles take approx. 40 mins to reach destination, FTSE and Dow Jones wouldn't have a lot of time...submarine-based missiles can reach their targets a lot faster and there are subs off the coast of the USA. Civilians would get only a few minutes warning of imminent attack.

Ok then you name something in American stocks and shares and I will gladly sell it you the day after the first bombs drop. I will accept gold and weapons only as payment as all currencies will be dead.

Nuclear war wouldn't be as total as entertainment sources would have us believe; if evrry nuclear power declared war on each other and decided on mutually assured destruction, then yes, we could be looking at something like The Road but that isn't a realistic or likely outcome.

It isnt the war or the radiation which are the problem it is everything else. There would be total breakdown in law and order across the globe. Money would be just paper and valueless so your police and armies arent going to work for nothing so they simply wont as law and order breaks out they will go home to protect theirs etc etc............nothing will function anywhere..........people and countries with vendettas will try and exercise such and it all goes pear shaped in a very short time.

A nuclear war isnt like lobbing a few Tomahawk missiles at an empty aircraft hanger in Syria.

4068ac1elhodqr

Zaph wrote: »

The official language of Tristan da Cunha is English, so you'd probably be grand there.

Ah so it is, and they were looking for a Farmer last year (that's handy with potatoes). Looks a tad tricky to get to, but they do have a dance hall so you'd get to greet all 300 inhabitants on the one night ...

Kivaro

Silane wrote: »

The ISS would be a safe place, might even make for a good show.

That made me think of this:
If ISIS took over the ISS, what would they call it?

wakka12

Large scale nuclear war would cause the world to end wouldnt it..? Nuclear winter causing all plant life to die? I thought that anyway but maybe Im wrong

Are Am Eye

wakka12 wrote: »

Large scale nuclear war would cause the world to end wouldnt it..? Nuclear winter causing all plant life to die? I thought that anyway but maybe Im wrong

The postulated 'nuclear winter' was based on faulty data which has sinced been revised.

As regards Nuclear War, it depends on what you mean by 'large scale'. Is that every nuclear power letting off every nuclear bomb they have? Because I don't think there are any realistic scenarios where anything near like that would happen. That was a very real fear during the cold war. The current Korean situation if it went nuclear (which it won't) would not involve world wide catastrophe. Huge casualties on a regional scale.

PucaMama

wakka12 wrote: »

Large scale nuclear war would cause the world to end wouldnt it..? Nuclear winter causing all plant life to die? I thought that anyway but maybe Im wrong

Not necessarily, it may damage the ozone layer so that temperature would drop and more uv light would get in from the sun causing skin cancer. But you have to get through the fallout etc first. Have you watched threads?

PucaMama

Are Am Eye wrote: »

wakka12 wrote: »

Large scale nuclear war would cause the world to end wouldnt it..? Nuclear winter causing all plant life to die? I thought that anyway but maybe Im wrong

The postulated 'nuclear winter' was based on faulty data which has sinced been revised.

As regards Nuclear War, it depends on what you mean by 'large scale'. Is that every nuclear power letting off every nuclear bomb they have? Because I don't think there are any realistic scenarios where anything near like that would happen. That was a very real fear during the cold war. The current Korean situation if it went nuclear (which it won't) would not involve world wide catastrophe. Huge casualties on a regional scale.

How can you possibly know it won't go nuclear

Are Am Eye

PucaMama wrote: »

How can you possibly know it won't go nuclear

Well that's just my opinion. No more and no less.
Kim would sign his death warrant in reaching for the red button.
He'll talk big. Impress his slaves people. But he won't commit suicide.
US may launch a non nuclear attack on North Korea.
That's how I see the situation.

PucaMama

Are Am Eye wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

How can you possibly know it won't go nuclear

Well that's just my opinion. No more and no less.
Kim would sign his death warrant in reaching for the red button.
He'll talk big. Impress his slaves people. But he won't commit suicide.
US may launch a non nuclear attack on North Korea.
That's how I see the situation.

If NK believes they could win they would do it.

Are Am Eye

PucaMama wrote: »

If NK believes they could win they would do it.

There's no scenario where they can win.

Even if they got off a few icbms which aren't intercepted and managed to get them on target (this is all giving massive benefit of doubt to them) that will be the sting of a dying wasp. They would kill a lot of people and then be obliterated. The US would flatten them.

Thankfully Kim and his mates know this. He will elect for a long and healthy life. And see how far he can push his nuclear development before someone clips his wings.

123shooter

Are Am Eye wrote: »

There's no scenario where they can win.

Even if they got off a few icbms which aren't intercepted and managed to get them on target (this is all giving massive benefit of doubt to them) that will be the sting of a dying wasp. They would kill a lot of people and then be obliterated. The US would flatten them.

Thankfully Kim and his mates know this. He will elect for a long and healthy life. And see how far he can push his nuclear development before someone clips his wings.

And then spread the nukes, missiles and other technology around the world to every other piece of sh*te..............this is why he has to go now and he probably knows it..........it any situation it is the end of the cheese monkey.

Badly Drunk Boy

Conspectus wrote: »

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ great fun to be had with this site.

A 100 megaton bomb on my house would resulted in an estimated 291,690 fatalities and 982,550 injuries. And I probably wouldn't make it to work the next day. (My workplace wouldn't be looking too great either...)

123shooter

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

A 100 megaton bomb on my house would resulted in an estimated 291,690 fatalities and 982,550 injuries. And I probably wouldn't make it to work the next day. (My workplace wouldn't be looking too great either...)

A 100 megaton nuclear strike in Castlebar caused €1000 worth of damage.