Suppose the big powers really did get into it. What would that actually look like? What capacity do American, Chinese, Russian nukes have?
What is the balance between attack and defence systems?
Would they target large cities like New York and Moscow in order to hurt morale, or would they target military bases like the Japs did in Pearl Harbor?
How long could such a conflict last, and how many people would die?
Have you ever seen the movie "Threads"? It will be basically like that.
>What would nuclear war actually look like?
Glorious that's what.
See for yourself...
Itd be even worse actually
Threads was only about a couple nukes in Britain, this would be global
You'll be fine, just make sure you're in the epicenter and your body vapourises before it can register pain. Boom dead, done and over with. None of this messy skin dropping off and radiation sickness.
>almost every large city on earth is destroyed instantly wiping out 90% of the world population
>highly radioactive fallout start to fall on every square inch of earth, anyone dumb enough to be outside will die
>after a few weeks the most radioactive elements in the fallout have decayed and radiation drops significantly
>earth turns into real life mad max for a few years until everyone dies from starvation or cancer
>a small group of intelligent people who were prepared will leave their bunkers and repopulate the earth
Find some comfort in the fact that it would be over before you knew it started
At first it will be shiny and blingy and the cool kids will dig it, then your being turns to into an electron swarm blown on the nuclear wind.
fini
>modernsurvivalblog.com
>MFW I've seen this map multiple times.
WHERE'S THE EUROPEAN ONE REEEE
Watch the movie again and actually pay attention this time.
The US map is based on military base targets and proximity nuclear silos isn't it?
Europe uses nuclear submarines but I'd guess they'd hit capital cities and then the next most populated city if it was a European scenario? I could be wrong.
Shipping ports, major roads and railway junctions, power plants, oil refineries. Basically anything that will destroy infrastructure.
An opening nuclear exchange starts with what is considered a "counterforce strike"
The idea is that you target enemy silos, nuclear weapons, and command and control structure.
You want to decapitate the enemy command structure, neutralize their ability to wage war on a strategic level, and still maintain enough nuclear weapons to deter retaliation or an attack from another nation.
The United States has 1722 warheads deployed right now, that is accounting for all of the ICBMs, SLBMs, and dial-a-nuke gravity bombs.
Let's assume the US wants to use 50% of their weapons in a counterforce strike against Russia. That means that the US will use 861 warheads.
Silos come first, Russia has 312 nuclear silos, you want to make sure the silos are destroyed so you use 2 warheads per silo, that's 624 warheads off the bat. That leaves 237 weapons left.
Next comes air defense, air force, and communications. Russia has 82 major installations for radar, communications, air bases, air reserve stations, air depots, and other logistic centers for their air force. Let's again, assume the US wants to kill these dead, that's 2 warheads per, that means 164 more warheads.
That leaves 73 warheads to target ground bases, government facilities, infrastructure, army groups, and literally everything else.
Considering that the grand majority of major military targets are not in large cities, it can be assumed that only the largest cities of military significance will be stricken, so civilian casualties will be minimal.
There is a lot more to nuclear war than "lol nuke the cities lol."
In Europe a single nuke could just catch a train from country to country and do all the work itself.
What is significant is not where the nukes land or how many die. The significance is the people and world dealing with the fallout of such an event. It would certainly end the world and human kind.
>reptile lizard men and their army of sub human grey alien slaves emerge from their lairs unscathed, proclaiming themselves the sorcerer king's of this world.
No, effects of fallout are grossly overstated. Within several months radiation would be slightly above background levels even at ground zero for these strikes.
Threads was the worst case scenario for a nuclear war. Thousands of megatons being dumped on America, Europe and Russia. They've come a long way in reducing the number of nuclear weapons since that was released.
A nuclear war would be the worst thing to ever happen to us but it wouldn't be as bad as Threads
Shit you're right. Hopefully our laser weapon which has already fried drones and mortars in its testing phase will be able to take down ICBMs.
See This is exactly how a the opening of a nuclear exchange would play out.
Yeah an interesting read but Europe doesn't have silos, just submarines that's France and UK, my countryman was correct about oil refineries/airports/military bases etc etc
>In Europe a single nuke could just catch a train from country to country and do all the work itself.
Don't quite get it.
Same shit, different toilet.
a counterforce strike against European NATO or the EU in general will be targeting mainly military bases and command and control. There are a lot of dial-a-nukes in Europe due to the US nuke-sharing program so there are plenty of military targets.
Another thing is that any counterforce strike against Europe is going to be much, much smaller, extremely small, because you'd have to retain ~70% of your warheads AT LEAST in order to have a credible deterrent against the US or China.
From what I understand the Chinese don't have that many nukes, around 200 or so. When asked they said something like "200 is all we need". The military industrial complex is actually pissed at them for that, from what I understand, because they can't justify making and keeping so many warheads themselves.
Nukes are city busters. They are pointless to use is rural areas. Best response if you're concerned about them - relocate to a rural area.
...so am I getting nuked or not?
I think I'm asking the question we all want to know, what the fuck happens to the internet in a WW3 scenario?
That movie is fuckin rough
That's incredibly wrong.
Also, another thing about China is that more than once some crazy general has seized the nuclear stockpile and held the CPC hostage.
They keep the warheads, the delivery systems, and the launchers all in different areas under different guard of different units under different generals to prevent that.
China, more or less, has no real deterrent.
Nukes would not be used against civilian centers unless it was part of a countervalue strike in retaliation and there are not enough military targets to use nukes on.
And everyone would be dead
Hence >end of humankind
Nukes don't exist.
>mfw croatia has a town called splif
No.
7-10 rule.
For example, let's say that 2 hours after detonation the exposure rate is 400 R/hr. After 14 hours, the exposure rate will be 1/10 as much, or 40 R/hr.
Not to mention that since nuclear weapons are airbursted, the worst of the fallout would be pushed into the atmosphere and dissipate.
I forgot the actual rule, fuck.
The 7:10 Rule of Thumb states that for every 7-fold increase in time after detonation, there is a 10-fold decrease in the exposure rate.
>greatest happening in the history of the world
>can't shitpost on Sup Forums
Yeah the nukes better just kill me
Nukes = massive EMP = all electronics BTFO = no moar pornhub = suicide
EMPs are also a meme.
So you've got 73 leftover. Couldn't you spare 5-10 minimum to destroy infrastructure in cities like New York, London, Moscow? And wouldn't each one of those cities account for hundreds of thousands or even millions of casualties?
lol no, it's called Split
must be a typo
It's Split you cunt. That's just a typo
The bombs used in the movie have long since been surpassed.
There are no winners in a modern nuclear exchange.
a man can dream shills, a man can dream
My calculation was for attacking Russia as the US.
Also, there are some inaccuracies in my shorthand calculations, there are several targets that would get several warheads, more than 2.
For instance, Vladivostok naval base and Sevastopol naval base would probably get a half dozen a piece.
The point is even using the extreme bare minimum of weapons per target there is no shortage of military targets.
Would you like me to crunch numbers for a Russian first strike on the US?
That's bullshit.
If I am America, demolish 90% of Russia's nuclear weapons and command and control structure with only half of my arsenal, and the Russian government collapses and the survivors agree to not retaliate as long as we don't launch a ground invasion and assist in rebuilding, I have objectively won the war in hours.
I live in London, should I leave? Don't want to dox myself but about 8 miles in a straight line from the houses of parliament
I like to think that it'll start with a single nuke being fired, with alarms going off in literally every single country in the world as they all hold their breath with their fingers on the triggers waiting to fire their own payloads.
Then after the impact, literally every single person in the world stopping in their tracks waiting for basically the end of the world. Hopefully after that point it never actually goes full nuclear holocaust and it all slowly fizzles to a "What if" scenario.
Except Dead Hand exists. Mutually assured destruction means Russia launches their ICBMs while the US's are still in the air.
>Don't want to dox myself but about 8 miles in a straight line from the houses of parliament
oh yeah, that's all the info we need
idiot
>live in Eastern MA maybe 20 miles from Boston
If a nuke drops on Boston I'm just getting in my truck and driving to the end of the Cape and hiding out in P-town with all the homos until it all blows over.
And if this turns into Walking Dead where murderous gangs rule the world... well honestly I'll probably get killed since I have no military/survival experience, and my software engineer skills won't really help me in the apocalypse.
Honestly it would be a totally conventional war until one side started losing bad that's when shit would hit the fan. By that time though expect Western Europe to be a smoking a hole in the ground.
>Would you like me to crunch numbers for a Russian first strike on the US?
I'm doing it anyway.
Russia has a total of 1499 nuclear warheads, again, spread out over all platforms.
We will assume a 65% usage of arsenal stockpiles in the first strike. That means 974 weapons. The rate is higher than the US because the US has more targets and the Russians less warheads.
The US has 449 ICBM silos, Russia has just enough weapons to cover US silos with 76 weapons left over. They will then deploy the rest of these weapons to destroy the most important air and naval bases. Realistically Russia does not have enough weapons to eliminate all US targets in a first strike.
US is left with enough of a stockpile to initiate a countervalue strike against Russian government, military, and civilian infrastructure targets.
Sorry man, Russia isn't what it used to be. It's been pretty brutal for you guys since the end of the Cold War.
Dead Hand was a meme, it was never built, it does not exist. Russian early warning satellites were allowed to decay without being replaced, Russia has no real ability to detect US missile launches, the best they can do is detect them in midflight with ling range radars and pray they can identify the threat and respond in enough time to launch some of their weapons. Russian nuclear readiness is not what it was during the Cold War, Russia is almost assured to lose an initial engagement if the US launches first.
The sheer amount of nuclear weapons NATO has basically assures that even if Russia deployed 100% of their weapons they would not have enough to decapitate NATO military command, and NATO would still have enough weapons to demolish Russian infrastructure.
Note: My numbers include ONLY active nuclear weapons that are ready to be deployed by the nuclear triad. The US and Russia do have thousands of reserve nuclear weapons but realistically those weapons are not in a condition to be deployed and detonated in a reasonable timeframe to affect the outcome of a nuclear exchange, in fact, many "reserve" nukes are actually being parted out to keep active nuclear weapons functioning.
It would be nice and warm and over in minutes.
It's a myth
Approximately how likely is it that major cities (Moscow, St. Petersburg) would get the bomb if the US struck first? If Russia struck first?
>90% of world's population is in cities or within 5 miles of a city
In any case we are fucked because you still have warheads stationed in Germany that are an obvious targat due to the closer range
it would be very bright and then you'd be blind
No to mention the decapitating strike from our SLBM's. MAD is not plausible.
The Soviet Union, being paranoid about a lot of things, put their military bases a good distance from their major cities. Both countries put their nuclear weapons in rural areas.
What this means is that while the Kremlin would be destroyed, most of Moscow proper would be fine. St. Petersburg has no real military targets and would most likely be largely spared from an initial strike.
The Americans were less cautious, and major top 5 military bases such as Tinker AFB are located in large metropolitan areas. What this means is that in the event on a Russian first strike on the US, there will be a much larger number of civilian deaths than in the reverse.
Washington DC has several large, important military bases and targets outside of the government targets (such as Andrews, Norfolk, Quantico, etc.)
>What would nuclear war actually look like?
The nuclear war that is the most possible would play out like this:
>Pakistan chimp out and attack random countries
>China, Russia, USA and France together bomb Pakistan
>Riots in UK
>Nothing of value lost
The future is bright.
>nukes drop
>EMP
>no more /pol and anime
>que Shinji scream
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
what if the afterlife is just us around our selves watching what we do in 3rd person without the ability to change a damn thing, i mean all those missed opportunitues
It won't ever happen, so don't worry. As another user said, there are no winners in a nuclear war. Let's be honest, the powers that be want to remain in that position, they won't jeopardise it for any reason. Even if it did theoretically happen, the main targets such as America, Russia and Britain have nuclear defence systems anyway. As far as Britain is concerned, the only country who could nuke us from a close enough distance to bypass the detection and defence system is France, and that is a highly unlikely scenario.
But the main point is that all governments exist to control their people and retain power and wealth. They will go into ground wars and sacrifice their citizens over international disputes but will never risk their own lives.
Survived the Nukes bcuz Rural Retard
Shot myself through head bcuz no more porn
BMD, while it works, cannot possibly stop a saturation attack.
The US has ~30 ICBM interceptors. They have a 50% chance to destroy an ICBM. ICBMs carry 8 warheads. At best, the US shoots down 120 warheads out of almost 1000 coming down on them.
THAAD, in theory, should be able to engage warheads, but we've yet to see that in practice and there aren't enough units to make a difference.
Nukes are a hoax.
Japan only got fire bomb the hell out of them. They wouldn't have rebuild so fast if there was "radiation"
>Not having several TBs of porn on external SDDs
Fucking pleb. I was born ready.
>1500 nukes arent enough.
If you carpet nuke usa with 1500 nukes, not many will live more than a couple of months.
Gotta fuck sheep from then on
.........never thought WW 3 would bring me closer to Islam
...
I have provided tons of evidence and explanations why this is patently false.
I have done everything I can to explain exactly why you are wrong.
Sorry man, but you are going to have to come up with SOMETHING that can show me otherwise. Until then I will assume my schooling and studying is more or less correct.
>You look up
>See this
Wow, thanks for the responses user, that's super helpful.
How you know so much about this?
yeah, you wouldn't see anything
Russia VS US VS China
Nuclear bunkers, Massive Moscow Metro VS Fema Camps VS No real plan, plenty of meatbags
Updated nuclear platform quality, not much quantity. Has trains armed with nukes VS stock is becoming outdated, but plentiful in terms of subs and planes VS Low quality and quantity, but set to overtake both others
The real question is Mutually Assured Destruction. Does it still exist? Plenty of reasons it doesn't, and the advantage is overwhelmingly Russian:
1) Intermediate and Short ranged cruise missiles are Russia's specialty. They have the Kh102 and the Iskander. Iskanders were moved to Kaliningrad, effectively breaking a treaty no one gave a fuck about, which allows Russia to neutralize Poland. The Kh102 has a range of 2700nm and carries a 450kt warhead.
Cruise missiles are hardest to detect because they are smaller than an aircraft overall, and can fly on "smart" low-low trajectories reducing the signal horizon for an active search radar. They're called smart because some systems like the German Taurus will use mountains for cover during cruise phase and passive countermeasures.
2) The Russians experimented with plasma to block radar waves. It essentially means radar, all meaningful air detection, is useless. There are two ways to do that. Either by flying at high altitude and using the open plasma method, which uses enormous amounts of energy and the altitude has to remain very high OR radome. Problem with radoming is that signals can't come into the plasma radome,but signals can't leave. So when Russians put plasma radomes over their engines it's fine, but putting them over the radar transmitter could cause problems transmitting signals,as it blocks ones own emissions. But they figured it out. IDK how, but they did. They can effectively travel almost completely invisible at strategic ranges. They said it was for space travel, but obviously it has a military use (piercing plasma with radar emissions).
There is no mad anymore.
No problem man.
I happen to work for an NGO that is contracted out to work on this kind of stuff.
Nothing secret squirrel, mainly just publicly available information and numbers crunching.
We work closely with a lot of non-proliferation guys but we also work with the US federal government and the British government.
Look at this jackass.
You're wrong, but I don't plan on going into how wrong you are.
Also, if you want to know anything else, just go to /k/ and ask about Oppenheimer and ask if anyone has some of my old archived threads. I'm sure someone does. I tripped there for a long time but it got to be a hassle. People started taking me too seriously and it became gradually less fun.
Nice bait, but I'll answer anyways so no one get's this jacked up:radiation is dependent on half life. Radiation from a reactor is different than a bomb, and is based on the overall output of energy. In other words, they got off easy as far as radiation goes.
50% chance against conventional scud type missiles you mean. Our testing vehicle was the Hera rockets for THAAD. Not the most advanced testing decoy.
Your opponent is right. Civilians are valid targets for nuclear weapons. The reason being is that 1000lb~ payload cruise missiles are enough to knockout hardened silo's-so you wouldn't waste nukes hitting those. Also, look at Russian doctrine. They've lost enough land that if they are invaded, they are supposed to(by the book at least) ensure that the aggressor has nothing to gain by invasion.
The western stance is more limited. This is why our newest nuclear stockpiles have modular amounts of explosive force like the B83 nuclear bomb. We would not likely resort to nuclear first strike at all. Maybe back in the cold war.
You're a Geo-space guy I'm guessing
There are many a video on youtube devoted to this.
I've read somewhere that if a nuke is detonated high enough above a country, the EMP can whipe out pretty much all electronics within.
Don't we all have disaster protocals though? The thing where if your nukes fire so do ours? I imagine that would keep everyone from every using them. Seriously nukes are no longer in the equation with that. Of course then there is whatever defenses we have in place to stop other missals..
> There is a lot more to nuclear war than "lol nuke the cities lol."
there really isn't
what you described is a first strike
retaliation would go exactly after the aggressor's cities even while the first strike is still in flight
thanks for the report
t. russian spy
Nuclear silos are hardened against the grand majority of conventional weapons, not to mention that no conventional Russian weapons could hope to possibly reach US nuclear silos.
Also
>50% chance against conventional scud type missiles you mean
No, I mean 50% chance against ICBMs during their midflight stage. We have literally tested these against ICBMs, they destroy the target about half the time.
THAAD is different, THAAD is used in a similar manner to AEGIS: to destroy SRBMs and IRBMs and possibly MIRVs in their terminal stages.
There literally is. After the first strike there are so many dozens of variables that it is impossible to determine what would happen after the first strike.
>while still in flight
Depends, Russia lost that ability a long time ago, China does not have that option.
It's all publicly available information. I didn't post any classified material.
those variable might mean the second stikre fails, but the retaliation is never counter-force. only aim is revenge
Have to wonder if any of it is actually accurate with it being public
Sweet, thanks for the info. Watching Threads right now too.
Shit like the Trinity Test and Manhattan project interests me, do you think that people will do further research into making weapons more powerful than thermonuclear missiles? Maybe one crazy bastard physicist will help make one?
Now, what we all need to realize is no matter what we think, reality will be different. Also, there is weapon tech that may be beyond what we have seen in the open source, media & entertainment venues. There are devices that are so large, there have never been tests of them. These are Tsunami & seismic devices that make natural disasters.
A lot of good info about why places are targeted.
The real problem will be after the devices go off. The dead will be dead, they give zero fucks. The problems will be many for the survivors, the most damaging will be rationing & martial law. Infrastrucures will be broken. Supply & logistics will fail.......
There will never be a nuclear war war ever, because everyone loses.
The most of it will be tactical nukes in "small" areas but not a global nuclear holocaust.
I was a cryptologist, if you're speaking to me. Doxxing be damned. Good guess though.
>"Nuclear silos are hardened against the grand majority of conventional weapons"
>"majority"
Against Chinese or Russian opponents, they will be using bunker busting type weapons. Likewise, we'll be using ours. The Russian option would likely be the Kh101. The American option would likely be the Tomahawk.
>"No, I mean 50% chance against ICBMs during their midflight stage. We have literally tested these against ICBMs, they destroy the target about half the time."
That's false. We're not allowed to test fire ICBM's due to treaties. We weren't supposed to use the Hera either, since it's IRBM. We're limited with what we're supposed to even test with. The decoys are not RS-28 equivalents by a long shot. They're basically scud equivalents in terms or range and radar signature. Maybe you're referring to cold war tests? Those are outdated in terms of cross section, speed, and countermeasures-so I don't know why you'd be using those as evidence. The only recent 50% test I know of is THAAD, which scored 49.5% when it was rolled off the line.
>"Depends, Russia lost that ability a long time ago,"
Also false. The Russian nuclear strategy is based around Satan and Sarmat silo's, submarines, train silo's, and the Kh102 as it's main counterattack.
global radiation spread via wind, uninhabitable zones, contaminated livestock and fields across the globe stopping food production, food shortages, the list is endless.
you could make some preparations if you wanted to, couple of big bags of rice, couple of big bags of beans, plenty of water.
rice + beans = pretty nutritious and balanced meal, probably get boring after a while so you would need some different flavourings, spices etc. but it would keep 1 person alive for a year, iif you bought like 2 big sacks of rice and 2 big sacks of beans, plenty of water to drink and a little to cook and small amount to give yourself a wash down every now and then.
Iodine tablets too to block radiation reaching the thyroid.
i dunno what else, youd have to try and seal up all windows and doors with duct take or something to try and stop any air getting in and out, obviously you would need some air circulation so you don't suffocate in your sealed home but it would have to be filtered.
this is why people should actually prepare for this type of shit just in case, what harm is doing a small amount of prepping, if you never have to use it then fine, but if you do need it you'd be grateful you had the foresight to do something.
how the fuck do you eat rice and beans for a year and not die of scurvy?
I feel like major exchange points would be considered in the attack. The internet being down is a great way to fuck with enemy morale and communication, so why not? Hell, the US might even seek to fuck with their own infrastructure to cut off internet access to international locations, just to make sure their civilian population isn't effected by propaganda as easily.
>implying any women have bunkers, can't repopulate with only cocks.
