>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
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
Logan Thompson
bump this thread faggots
Carter Sanders
bumming this thread
Cooper Allen
implying they would test nuclear bombs in the same highly populated places that they'd use in war? How dumb can you be?
Anthony Gray
>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
Brayden Edwards
Obviously they don't test the biggest bombs, they test smaller ones and blow up the blueprint bigger, LEAF
Day of Rake when?
Bentley Brown
fuck you, you don't know that
i'll shove a rake up your ass
Jose Watson
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.
Carson Sanchez
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
William Price
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).
Adam Barnes
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
Dylan Phillips
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?
Jordan Watson
bump for interest
Mason Ward
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.
Evan Cox
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.
Grayson Martinez
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.
Lincoln Gray
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?
Joshua Harris
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
Joseph Rogers
Ouch
Evan Myers
What about nuclear windsurf?
Tyler Hughes
the ruskies had to tell the yanks to stop nuking the sky.
Xavier Morales
>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.
Ethan Sullivan
>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
Noah Hernandez
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.
Jack Sanders
Yea see, I'm not so convinced.
Zachary Gutierrez
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.
Ayden Allen
lol....
nvm you're right, our ozone later is completely invincible to everything. what a genius!!
Ryan Rivera
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
Hudson Young
What's your secret technique for surviving the radiation?
Adam Campbell
Implying an underground nuclear test is the same as incinerating a city. You're a moron
Dylan Baker
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
William Evans
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.
Hunter Powell
>forests across the world burn Wtf are you talking about
Jose Collins
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.
Elijah Evans
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.
Oliver Ortiz
How can anyone think this video was real? This looks incredibly fake. Just look at it.
Ryan Green
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
Oliver Brown
I've never seen one so i doubt it
Adrian Perry
>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.
Joseph Rodriguez
Weap your little brain around this. The Russians eventually had to your kike run government to stop it.
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
Evan Scott
Fecking phone. Wrap* tell*
Blake Anderson
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?
Austin Butler
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
Tyler Morales
Wait? Murricans did nuke tests in space? Hitler really should have won the war and not those satanist kikes.
Leo Hughes
>the dolphin people from nibiru will allow a nuclear war to happen
L M A O
Jacob Walker
there are like ten post explaining why you are a retard, but a leaf is a leaf i guess
Luis Howard
> Not understanding the difference between targeting islands in the Pacific (the middle of nowhere) and targeting densely populated areas of the world
Justin Flores
makes me wonder if nukes are even effective in space since there are no gasses to send a shockwave
Chase Gomez
Yeah, it shut down the electricity in Hawaii.
Isaac Cox
>The US and Russia have been testing underground since the Kennedy administration. There's rumors that we do that too
Nolan Green
based laef
Gavin Robinson
nukes cost too much to maintain. there are less than 50 active
Eli Walker
Considering Project Newcastle sunk a large portion of Bikini Atoll. I would say that nukes have physical evidence of their existence.
Gabriel Wilson
Also >not understanding what a nuke caused firestorm is
Brandon Scott
>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.
Ryder Green
>not realising that not all nukes have the same strengh
Josiah Richardson
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.
Carter Foster
Can you give a quick rundown on how potassium iodine works, how much to take, etc?
Brody Brooks
You can fire of all the nukes in the world and they wouldn't compare to volcanoes that have gone off in modern times.
Landon James
see
Landon Reyes
listen retard..... they'd all have to be going off simultaneously to have that effect.
/thread
Charles Green
When nukes are launched it will be thousands of them though, all across the worldl
Brandon Davis
i hate nigz but how about better have japanese rather than nukes or nigz ?
Connor Lopez
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.
Nolan Fisher
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.
Logan Howard
Its protects the thyroid gland from radioactive iodine, tablet a day for a few days of fall out.
Nolan Martinez
>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.
Andrew Rivera
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
Eli Perry
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.
Adam Powell
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.
Grayson Williams
that time is well known.
Noah Sanchez
>not all land based nukes are used at once, not all subs are viable for counterattack Why would you think that?
Tyler Sullivan
Was it? I recalled that is was an estimated time from experts.
Christopher Morales
Has kek ushered in the new cold war / WW3?
Levi Cooper
Nice thoth
Leo Harris
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)
>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).
Oliver Reyes
>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.
Chase Flores
>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.
Wyatt Williams
>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
Elijah Scott
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.
David Murphy
>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.
James Taylor
>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.
Leo Morris
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.
Sebastian Harris
It's not about hate. It's about winning or losing. The side that would try your tactic would lose.
Brody Russell
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?
Jaxon Gray
the "huge damage" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was helped along by traditional firebombing
Brody Sullivan
I don't know, can someone redpill me on steel from sunken ships?
Justin Nguyen
everyone who doesnt believe in nukes, google "Colorado Rocky Flats Disaster", they are very real
Andrew Howard
>functionally both sides lose That's why it's incredibly dangerous to go hurr durr the exchange can be limited. It won't be.
Grayson Rogers
THE BANTZ
Chase Bell
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.
Christian Morgan
This thread would get more bumps if you posted pics of hot women
Joseph Bennett
>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.
Michael Baker
>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
Robert Bell
>get nuked >WE SURRENDER Idiocy.
Joseph Stewart
>get nuked >nuclear exchange stops
Joshua Smith
Here is what 47 (1000 times smaller than Tzar Bomba) kt looks like.