The mythology of nuclear bombs

>there is enough nuclear weapons in the world to wipe out the entire planet 8 times
>nuclear blasts would send dust flying into the atmosphere blocking out the sun causing another ice age
>nuclear winter
>the radiation from all the nukes would wipe out every living life form on earth
>its not just M.A.D. it's a world assured destruction

At one point or another in your life, you've come across these claims and believed them without question.
The number of KNOWN nuclear bomb tests done in the entire world since 1945 is 2056. Notice how NOTHING has happened?

I'm implying that if you aren't hit in the direct vicinity of an all out nuclear bomb, you will very likely survive

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=AkujMTSFr9o
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

do nuclear bombs even really exist?

think about it

yes they do, but what i think is the question we should be asking: how do we know if the reported number of nukes a country has is accurate

bump this thread faggots

bumming this thread

implying they would test nuclear bombs in the same highly populated places that they'd use in war? How dumb can you be?

>nuclear blasts would send dust flying into the atmosphere blocking out the sun causing another ice age
>nuclear winter
>the radiation from all the nukes would wipe out every living life form on earth

way to read the thread dumbass

Obviously they don't test the biggest bombs, they test smaller ones and blow up the blueprint bigger, LEAF

Day of Rake when?

fuck you, you don't know that

i'll shove a rake up your ass

Nuclear winter requires that enough blasts and dust go up simultaneously that it drastically shifts the environment.
I personally find the notion that it would cause some kind of "Dust winter" for 200 years fucking bullshit, because dust and ash have substantially more weight than water vapour, they do not form long-lasting and traveling clouds like water can, and once it's fallen, it's down for good.

It could be the case however that enough ash gets thrown up and tossed around by the warped climate that it manages to choke out enough sunlight to kill plants a large amount of plants, and by extension animals. In that case we're probably fucked.

the effects and dangers of radiation have definitely been exaggerated.

if you drop something as large as the Tsar Bomba on something, it will fuck shit up

And how many simultaneous blasts do you reckon it would take to achieve that? My bet is that it's a very high number (i.e. an unlikely nuclear strike scenario).

Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

True, I guess the question is how are American and Russian nukes set to blow?
Do they randomly just scatter this shit across the land, a hundred here, a hundred there etc.

Or do they send a fixed number to major cities, military bases and so on, and then hold the rest in reserve?

bump for interest

you can google for former soviet targets of the UK from the 50/60's. They got leaked from the Russia archives and i was amazed to see my area was a-okay. If anything, looking at the state of some of our cities it would clean the place up abit.

very much exaggerated

You know how many nuclear tests they did in Nevada? Where is all the fallout? Where is the spike in radiation poisoning?

What's much more dangerous is nuclear reactor meltdowns like in fukushima or chernobyl. Now THATS radiation.

Nuclear war wouldn't end the world, but it would be absolutely devastating.
As always people here think in 1's and 0's.
Yes "power" of nukes has been exaggerated, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be horrific devastation.
And there's a reason nuclear testing was stopped you know.

Radiation isn't magic you know. But radiation levels increased because of nuclear testing. That's why they stopped.
Why do you think use steel from sunk ships for radiation counters?

Get some potassium iodine tablets and some water purification tablets and stay indoors, preferably in a cellar for a few days and obviously if your area isn't directly hit you should be okay.

>t. nuclear worker

Ouch

What about nuclear windsurf?

the ruskies had to tell the yanks to stop nuking the sky.

>Notice how NOTHING has happened?
The US and Russia have been testing underground since the Kennedy administration. Before then there's been tones of tests that should've gone well but didn't. Notably Castle Bravo and Tsar bomba. With both those tests the radiation got scattered by winds to places far away and ground zero is still contaminated. If you think nukes are more predictable than chemical weapons you're wrong. The radioactive dust kicked up by blowing up entire cities would devastate the planet.

>I'm implying that if you aren't hit in the direct vicinity of an all out nuclear bomb, you will very likely survive


I think the world would be better with Moscow and mecca turned to radioactive glass

Nobody will live through a Nuclear war, idiots....

It'll dissolve the Ozone layer and then we'd all die from the sun's UV rays and radiation.

Yea see, I'm not so convinced.

Sigh...

(1) Nuclear exchange occurs

(2) Electric grids go down across the world

(3) Television-tier plebs start burning down cities

(4) Fires spread to rural areas, forests across the world burn

It is quite easy to see how the chain of inevitable events means a blacked out sky even from a few dozen nukes, never mind 20k-30k of them.

lol....

nvm you're right, our ozone later is completely invincible to everything. what a genius!!

Sup Forums is an anti-science ultraconservative authoritarian patriarchal theocracy.
Explain to me why Islam isn't this board's choice of religion again? Because you guys are profoundly retarded

What's your secret technique for surviving the radiation?

Implying an underground nuclear test is the same as incinerating a city.
You're a moron

You're a dumbass. I already said there's been over two THOUSAND nuclear bomb tests all around the world. In fucking NEVADA desert (i.e. 40km away form major population centres). Where do you see deformed burger babies? Where do you see humanitarian crises from the spread of radiation as a result of nuclear explosions? That's right, FUCKING NOWHERE. Not unless you're within direct proximity of the explosion will you likely suffer the effects of radiation.

>everyone is stupid except for me
ebin, simply ebin

Nuclear winter is not caused by the blast force of the bomb kicking up dust. That dust is mostly vaporized and otherwise too heavy to remain in the atmosphere for a significant amount of time. It is soot from firestorms in cities and forests theoretically ignited by the blast that would cause the winter. Interestingly, the only time the weapons have been used (japan) they did not cause firestorms which makes the entire hypothesis preposterous.

Nuclear winter has not been a serious hypothesis since computer models got better in the 80's. You will likely die in a nuclear war from economic collapse induced starvation and disease, just like all other massive wars.

>forests across the world burn
Wtf are you talking about

This.

The direct effects and doomsday proportions of the weapons have surely been exaggerated, but the power of these weapons is still staggering beyond compare.

All the nuclear winter stuff and full on "nuke the world 6 million times over" is debunked or at least questions in quite a lot scenario's.

How civilization would look like after these massively destructive devices have been used leaves enough room for leeway, but I can assure you that most daily commodities that keep our modern life so comfy will be fucked.

Think Aleppo during the siege, but on a continental/global scale.

Nuclear winter is partially true if hundreds of bombs went off at the same time. It would likely only affect one hemisphere though and only cause a 10-20 degree temp drop which would fuck up a lot of crops and kill a lot of people (mostly niggers). It likely wouldn't be this apocalypse scenario unless you were in a place that actually was bombed, or a nigger in Africa that depends on other countries giving you food for free.

How can anyone think this video was real? This looks incredibly fake. Just look at it.

i read that a full nuclear exchange between pakistan and india would be enough. funny enough if the whole world detonated its nukes at once nothinf would change since the ash in the atmosphere would clear up after the same duration as the india pakistan nuking

I've never seen one so i doubt it

>Notice how NOTHING has happened?
Retarded boomers were born.
Maybe their brains are mush because of all the surface nuclear tests in the 50s and 60s.

Weap your little brain around this. The Russians eventually had to your kike run government to stop it.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=AkujMTSFr9o

Also global warming is a meme.

Now this I'm more inclined to believe. Except I wouldn't stick around in any city, I'd obviously go innawoods. Lucky for me, there's plenty of that here

Fecking phone. Wrap* tell*

Guys, if enough nukes go off in one area, will it tear a hole in the earth? What's even on the other side of the earth?

I'm pretty sure they exist though you're right it's likely that there are a lot of myths surrounding them, that said they're lying about the round earth so they probably lie about this too

Wait?
Murricans did nuke tests in space?
Hitler really should have won the war and not those satanist kikes.

>the dolphin people from nibiru will allow a nuclear war to happen

L M A O

there are like ten post explaining why you are a retard, but a leaf is a leaf i guess

> Not understanding the difference between targeting islands in the Pacific (the middle of nowhere) and targeting densely populated areas of the world

makes me wonder if nukes are even effective in space since there are no gasses to send a shockwave

Yeah, it shut down the electricity in Hawaii.

>The US and Russia have been testing underground since the Kennedy administration.
There's rumors that we do that too

based laef

nukes cost too much to maintain.
there are less than 50 active

Considering Project Newcastle sunk a large portion of Bikini Atoll.
I would say that nukes have physical evidence of their existence.

Also
>not understanding what a nuke caused firestorm is

>there are people in this very thread who think 100s of nuclear bombs can throw up as much dust in the atmosphere as an average sized volcano

Nuclear winter is retarded.

>not realising that not all nukes have the same strengh

the redpill is that all nuclear strategy revolves around destroying the ability of the enemy to continue a nuclear war, so only assets directly involved with the deployment of nuclear weapons would be directly targeted in the case of an exchange. the death toll would be maybe 50 million at most, not anywhere near a billion or even 300 million.

the people who plan these wars don't even care about fallout or what will happen after the war. they just focus on destroying the enemy's C2.

Can you give a quick rundown on how potassium iodine works, how much to take, etc?

You can fire of all the nukes in the world and they wouldn't compare to volcanoes that have gone off in modern times.

see

listen retard..... they'd all have to be going off simultaneously to have that effect.

/thread

When nukes are launched it will be thousands of them though, all across the worldl

i hate nigz but how about better have japanese rather than nukes or nigz ?

Inna woods would literally be a walking Dead tier existence.

You'll have competition. You'll need food. You'll need to hunt without drawing attention. You'll need to grow food crop without drawing attention..

I'm starting to believe bunker preppers have it right... Create a fortress, supply it, and then defend it until things (hopefully) calm.

Thats a USA doctrine. You obviously dont know what the Russian doctrine is. It is something like "lob so many nukes into USA that they cant shoot back anymore" instead of precision strikes.

Its protects the thyroid gland from radioactive iodine, tablet a day for a few days of fall out.

>nuclear strategy revolves around destroying the ability of the enemy to continue a nuclear war

>deploy all land-based nukes
>enemy nukes hit the now defunct sites
>still have subs
Sounds like a dumb strategy.

the real redpill is detonating a nuke in the sky above new york to shut down all the computers in wall street with the electromagnetic pulse

no, that's global doctrine. targeting populations is ultimately useless if you want an exchange to stop, targeting command and control is very useful.

not all land based nukes are used at once, not all subs are viable for counterattack. counterforce attacks will always be the method of choice in nuclear war. even if you can't stop the exchange, you can dampen it or prevent the enemy from remaining politically relevant.

Also
>Hillary Clinton went on national TV and told the entire world the time window for a nuclear defense
She single handy fucked us in so many ways when said that.

that time is well known.

>not all land based nukes are used at once, not all subs are viable for counterattack
Why would you think that?

Was it?
I recalled that is was an estimated time from experts.

Has kek ushered in the new cold war / WW3?

Nice thoth

nuclear war isn't an on or off thing, there are many levels of nuclear war beyond "Is this a dream about the set of that terminator movie?". if you want an example of a smaller nuclear deployment, a counter-attack against north korean nuclear assets is an entirely possible thing (given that north korea under current US doctrine has to attack first), and it is very unlikely that china or russia would blow their load upon learning of a US nuclear strike on north korea.

well think about it. you have nuclear subs off the eastern coast, they are probably going to attack the pentagon or the white house if they do attack, and if that happens you have 5-6 minutes to do something. are you going to allow your response time frame to go above 5 minutes?

this stuff has been known since the 50s.

if you want an example (this is USSR doctrine but the US has the same deal)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident

>After stage separation, the rocket launch appeared on radar similar to multiple re-entry vehicles (MRVs); the Russian control center did not immediately realize that the Norwegian scientific rocket was headed out to sea, rather than toward Russia. Tracking the trajectory took eight of the ten minutes allotted to the process of deciding whether to launch a nuclear response to an impending attack (Trident submarine missiles from the Barents Sea could reach Russia's mainland in ten minutes).

>nuclear war isn't an on or off thing
Yes it is. There's been discussions whether it could be limited to a couple nukes per side in the 50s. Those discussions no longer happen. Guess why. You deploy your shit before it can be disabled. Simple logic.
>counter-attack against north korean nuclear assets
Who cares about NK? Explain why the US would nuke Russia's nuke sites after Russia already deployed every single nuke at a major US city. How is that in any way a favourable position for the US? That US doctrine garbage is probably just that. Garbage. It's PR so that people let them keep the nukes.

>Yes it is.
no it isn't. the US now has no real reason to carry out a first strike against China or Russia. all nuclear policy is currently geared towards defense.

>You deploy your shit before it can be disabled
it's no longer the 60s Vladimir.

>Who cares about NK?
the US. NK is a tumor on this pristine earth, but the US wants it to stay where it is. if it starts nuking people it needs to stop.

>Explain why the US would nuke Russia's nuke sites after Russia already deployed every single nuke at a major US city.
Russia would not target any US city. they would target silos, command and control installations, government installations and so on. there is a large chance that places like NYC would remain entirely untouched.

Russia would not fire all of it's nukes at once either. they may be dirty fucking communists, but they're not sociopaths. they don't WANT a war, they want to prevent one, but they're ready to fight one if they need to. they would keep a reserve, ready to strike again if they need to, but they wouldn't go all in all at once.

>Hurr nothing wrong with nuclear tests
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
Nuclear tests have made modern steel unfit for use in radiation-sensitive equipment. Use of nuclear weapons is a problem.

Anyway, I remember reading that nuclear war would result in a loss of atmosphere

Submitted this on accident. I remember reading that nuclear war would result in a loss of atmosphere due to the explosions propelling the air above them out of the gravitational pull of the Earth. Pretty sure that's bullshit.

>they're not sociopaths
Think again. Civilians always get fucked in wars. The people that fight gentlemanly LOSE. In that previous scenario the Russian attack would bring even a behemoth like the US to its knees. Meanwhile you're thinking they're gonna be fucking around trying to eliminate nuke sites. Madness. Once it's on it's on.

>there is a large chance that places like NYC would remain entirely untouched.

No. It would be in the fallout zone from DC and northern Virginia, which certainly would be hit. An actual bomb being targeted there would be irrelevant as almost everyone would be trapped in a dense area with nuclear fallout and no food.

do you really think that the Russians hate the Americans so much that they are willing to throw away their entire way of life, their people, and everything important to them to wipe the Americans out?

if you gave the Russians an option to just make the Americans irrelevant, they would have taken it. that wasn't an option. they don't have a death wish.

>Meanwhile you're thinking they're gonna be fucking around trying to eliminate nuke sites.
yes, because not all nukes are going to be launched at once. if you can take some out you can get a buffer that gives you some room to move around with.

fallout is irrelevant compared to being hit directly. stay inside, shut your windows, wait a few weeks then come outside. the problems from fallout come a few generations after the attack, not a few days.

It's not about hate. It's about winning or losing. The side that would try your tactic would lose.

functionally both sides lose. what matters is who loses less, and a counterforce strategy makes you lose less. how can a country continue a nuclear war if it's politicians are dead, half of it's military bases are fucking gone, and the populace is more concerned with acquiring food than shooting foreigners?

the "huge damage" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was helped along by traditional firebombing

I don't know, can someone redpill me on steel from sunken ships?

everyone who doesnt believe in nukes, google "Colorado Rocky Flats Disaster", they are very real

>functionally both sides lose
That's why it's incredibly dangerous to go hurr durr the exchange can be limited. It won't be.

THE BANTZ

yes it will be limited. both sides will decide to keep some weapons in reserve in case someone else tries something (China ring a bell?), after the first volley both sides will realize that their enemy isn't really in the mood to fight. there may not be peace talks, but there will be a temporary ceasefire. afterwards both sides will come into tense peace talks, and in the end both sides will come out of the war incredibly damaged but still intact. if it gets any worse, that just means that one side will no longer be a country but the other will. even then there's no reason to continue a nuclear exchange.

now, there may be subsequent ground wars, invasions, annexations and so on, but there won't be a final bombastic exchange.

This thread would get more bumps if you posted pics of hot women

>enemy isn't really in the mood to fight
In what fucking universe do you live in? The only way to avoid full exchange is peace talks BEFORE any bombs drop.

>every single military base armed with nuclear weapons is a smoldering crater
>the pentagon is pentagone
>the white house is now a beige-hovel
>san diego? hardly knew her!
>what's this nebraska thing?
>everyone still wants to fight though

>get nuked
>WE SURRENDER
Idiocy.

>get nuked
>nuclear exchange stops

Here is what 47 (1000 times smaller than Tzar Bomba) kt looks like.