>Last Thread 404'd
General Nuclear War Discussion Thread
>Potential Targets
>Survival Plans
>Fate of the Internet, Sup Forums and Sup Forums
>Possible ways to restart society/how it would be run
>Scout/suggest Locations for max survivability/thrivability
Try not to Larp, this is a planning thread not a doomsday/prophetic thread
I don't understand why you guys are such faggots. DEAL WITH IT. The establishmnet is done. David Brock hasn't done shit but waste money for 2 years.
This help? I mean if the nukes go flying burger is cooked but atleast it helps a little for immediate evacuation/bug out.
We are going to barricade the continent and shot invaders at sight.
>Targets
Military bases, major cities, oil/gas refineries
>Survival plans
Live in the idyllic white countryside. Shoot any nonwhites who come from the shattered cities, help your fellow whites
>Fate of the internet
Satellites would be more or less completely destroyed as militaries try to gain a stragetic advantage.
>Restart society
Ethnic nationalism
I honestly would love to just move out to some remote island in the Southern hemisphere and live self sufficiently with maybe a few others. The Pitcairn Islands seems like a perfect place. Tristan de Cunha or Beauvais Island also work
You should see the other guy!
All that i know is that i live in a very valuable place. I believe that the biggest worry for me/our population would be that it would be used as a staging area for an invasion of north america. We wouldn't be directly attacked because our resources (oil, uranium, iron, silver, gold, water, etc) are too valuable and the location for a "first boots on the ground" scenario is too good to pass up. I'm sure that whoever would be advancing on Canada/the US would try, and fail, to take us as slave labour as well - we'd all die fighting to defend the shitty little island that we call home.
We'll be telling our grandchildren all about the great battle for St. John's.
God guard thee, Newfoundland.
Currently looking for Nuke maps of countries other than US but I can't find any.
>Survival plans
Drinkin. Its pretty much like regular survival shit. Fallout is surprisingly over-rated. Throw in biological and then you've got me worried.
Yep. Makes you wonder. Might find one for UK.
Do you really think that A.)There would even be a point of invading eachother after the entire Western Hemisphere is glassed over fallout and B.)That Russia, China or otherwise could invade North America across thousands of miles of open ocean?
how safe are we
>you cant invade and occupy irradiated territories
lol
>Found this
Now Maybe we can find on of Russia or EU
>Two Cities
>Entire Countries
Seems like a false analogy
Yes and yes. Personally i dont think that any capable country is willing to lob bombs all willy nilly. This shit is about territory and control, just like any other war. There may be a handful of atomic bombs dropped in strategic locations but i feel something like an EMP would be widely used to knock out everything we control so that whoever is attacking could essentially waltz in unhindered to clean up the mess and take whatever is left.
Thats just my two cents, but then again, we dont really know how this shit will play out until it happens, right? :^)
Found this
Well yea, we are discussing possibilities. It is a fair question to think about. How would the rest of ww3 play out after all the nukes are spent..
Way too risky. If it's at the point where nukes are launched, you're throwing every goddamn nuke, bomb, and firecracker at the other side because of how much you want to make sure you damage their ability to do the same to you. No amount of possible gains are worth the risk. Better to crater anything even remotely threatening in a nuclear scenario than risk taking it intact.
There will never be a scenario between nuclear powers where "a handful" are exchanged. It's a fight to the death.
looks like they'd be ok, honestly
>greater chile
my fucking sides tupamaro, you can't even handle our low tier nigger rapefugees; now imagine our premium grade "ñeros" and "galas" swarming your nicely build roads and neighborhoods
antarctica
completely serious
nukes are ~75 years old. the weapons that will actually decide ww3 will destroy civilization as we know it.
aim high for survival
>looks like they'd be ok
Most of Russia is empty. Those few places are where the people actually live.
I think that either side would opt to completely disable the oppositions technological capabilities and capture the territory for rebranding rather than drop a-bombs on every significant target. Sure a-bombs will destroy the enemy but you're essentially sealing your fate as well once you give the order to send them over. Everyone dies and everything is destroyed leaving little to nothing for those who remain. What would be the point of that?
But again, thats just the uneducated opinion of a bumblefuck newfie.
It's called Mutually Assured Destruction or M.A.D. It basically means that if I'm going down you're going down with me.
Yes i know what that is but i truly believe that no current leader wants that. It doesn't help them get to their endgame goal, does it? Again man, these wars are all about territory and control. MAD doesn't ensure either of those for either side.
>I think that either side would opt to completely disable the oppositions technological capabilities
And the best way to do that is disintegration with nukes. Nobody is going to take a chance on a half-measure.
You're saying that two guys with guns would agree to only stabbing each other in the hopes that the other guy doesn't use his gun.
Siberia stronk!
American theory. Its why we dropped doing civil defense preps. Other nations still do it all since they have other views on it. Part of what "sold" MAD was blowing up fallout scares, nuke winters, etc. mostly horseshit.
My guess is pretty good. Still looking for maps and could use help. Just found this:
>Still can't find a map of what US/Nato would nuke
>greater Chile
You can't make this shit up!!!
I'm fucking dying!!!!
>kek
> Its why we dropped doing civil defense preps
It's also because we have two massive oceans and two extremely weak neighbors. When have we ever done "Civil Defense Prep"?
Only cockroaches would survive the nukes so it makes sense. Them and the Kebabs would rein supreme
its all cold war stuff. Interesting bit about Russian nukes atthe time was they weren't particularly good with precision so they built bigger nukes, like the kind they showed on parades. The idea was close is good enough with nukes.
50s 60s
70s they still taught a lot of it, did drills, had fallout shelter signs everywhere and publicized what the sirens would sound like.
some of the shelters can still be found if you're into that kind of shit
Interesting. Found this article, seems to cover the basics well
Interesting. Would you say that ww3 is more or less likely now than back then? And how/why is it different?
More now, I guess.
Back in 50s 60s the bombs were weaker, shorter range. We make fun of duck and cover now, but back in the 50s the scenario was short-range small nukes used like artillery or strategic bombs with a horde of Russians following swiftly after to clean up. They'd have to quickly go through Canada or mount the attack from, say, Cuba for that to work. Difficult at best.
70s the bombs were bigger and intercontinental and much more precise. The math changed. Because of that, diplomacy finally got serious in the 80s.
Now we've got state actors who will not necessarily respond rationally. Take Iran, for example. If they fully believe they can hasten Armageddon on the 12th Imam etc then what leverage do you have? If they launch ONE you bomb them to Hell, 0 to 50 instantly, because there is no incentive you can offer for them to stop.
I don't know if the same is true for NK. Might just be. I'm pretty sure when a country joins the club they get a series of very interesting phone calls explaining reality in stark terms.
>planning thread
Why not stick to southern cone? You have to defend a sick ass long coast if you conquer the entire continent.
>Back in 50s 60s the bombs were weaker, shorter range
Its the opposite...nukes were bigger to compensate for less accuracy.ICBMs had warheads in the MT range (9-20Mt).Today the warheads are smarter and much smaller like 150 to 350 kt.
Im in Scotland out of the range of obvious nuke target sites. May get some of the fallout though. Will probably raid as much as I can before people start going feral then find a good spot for a farm somewhere out of the way. Any idea about land and water safety if it's been affected by fallout?
go easy on the new-queers, they don't understand how things work here
it's a good idea, shh
If there is a war between the USA and Russia, I have about an 80% chance of not being nuked here in Tbilisi (no longer on US/NATO target lists and not considered a threat to Russia - or China). Even if Russia is heavily nuked, including close by, my fallout shelter (part of our basement and even an old Cold War one down the street) would only be needed for a week and would not need to be very heavily shielded. Life in the South Caucasus would only become interesting if the Russian survivors attempted to grab the arable land here, which they would likely not have the population or forces to manage after a full exchange. Either way, my plan is to listen to and broadcast on my shortwave, see what's the least unstable place and head there once the fallout conditions subside and pockets of lingering radiation are mapped reliably. Frankly? I think it will be in lower South America, aside from Peru, Paraguay or Brazil.
I would expect Australia would take one or two on the chin, and perhaps NZ too. You don't get to be part of the big 5 snooping system and not have Russia or China shit a few fuck yous your way, nuke-free or not.
>live in northern Wisconsin
Feels good man