Current Events > Guys is this true?

(+) Yeah! (+)

You don't understand. No where on the planet is safe. The amount of heat generated from a nuclear exchange from two major powers would literally fry the atmosphere. As it it would destroy it completely. The earth would become uninhabitable. There is no rebuilding, every living creature on the planet dies. That is thy he reality of WW3.

Or is my friend being paranoid?
---

underground
---

That's why I play Fallout sir. I'm ready to go and I saved a LOT of beer bottle caps.
---

The stronger the opinion, the more likely it's wrong.
---

DrizztLink posted...

The stronger the opinion, the more likely it's wrong.

Well I said a nuclear strike on the US would probably be aimed at metropolitan places like Los Angeles, San Francisco or New York even if..and this was his response.
---

Thing is if someone where to strike the us with a nuke, why leave anything alive? Theyd most likely level the while thing.
---

BuckVanHammer posted...

Thing is if someone where to strike the us with a nuke, why leave anything alive? Theyd most likely level the while thing.

Like....you know how many nukes would need to be sent to effect the whole untied states? Their blast radius isnt that huge..,
---

Ryetoast posted...

DrizztLink posted...

The stronger the opinion, the more likely it's wrong.

Well I said a nuclear strike on the US would probably be aimed at metropolitan places like Los Angeles, San Francisco or New York even if..and this was his response.

LA, NYC, or DC probably would be up there.

Maybe try to hit the San Andreas fault and see if that stirs things up.

But the whole "fry the atmosphere" thing is shit.

Was a concern before we ever fired one off, but hypothesis failed.
---

Ryetoast posted...

BuckVanHammer posted...

Thing is if someone where to strike the us with a nuke, why leave anything alive? Theyd most likely level the while thing.

Like....you know how many nukes would need to be sent to effect the whole untied states? Their blast radius isnt that huge..,

No idea, but why give us the chance to retaliate?

Im talking legit war, not just a terror attack.
---

BuckVanHammer posted...

Ryetoast posted...

BuckVanHammer posted...

Thing is if someone where to strike the us with a nuke, why leave anything alive? Theyd most likely level the while thing.

Like....you know how many nukes would need to be sent to effect the whole untied states? Their blast radius isnt that huge..,

No idea, but why give us the chance to retaliate?

Im talking legit war, not just a terror attack.

Because a parking lot is no use when you can take resources, captures, or conquer the nation for your own.
---

Ryetoast posted...

BuckVanHammer posted...

Thing is if someone where to strike the us with a nuke, why leave anything alive? Theyd most likely level the while thing.

Like....you know how many nukes would need to be sent to effect the whole untied states? Their blast radius isnt that huge..,

Russia has a mini nuke set that when set off all at once can take out an area the size of texas.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-new-satan-nuclear-weapons-system-could-wipe-out-texas-france-573199

Now imagine if they mass produced these...
---

Duncanwii posted...

Ryetoast posted...

BuckVanHammer posted...

Thing is if someone where to strike the us with a nuke, why leave anything alive? Theyd most likely level the while thing.

Like....you know how many nukes would need to be sent to effect the whole untied states? Their blast radius isnt that huge..,

Russia has a mini nuke set that when set off all at once can take out an area the size of texas.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-new-satan-nuclear-weapons-system-could-wipe-out-texas-france-573199

Now imagine if they mass produced these...

I dont have to imagine because that scenario is absolutely inconceivable.

And even if it is Ill be dead so might as well live?
---

Volcanic eruptions are frequently more intense by magnitudes than most nuclear weapons.
---

Sabram posted...

Volcanic eruptions are frequently more intense by magnitudes than most nuclear weapons.

Volcanoes don't vaporize entire cities and leave the area radioactive for decades.The only volcano I can think of that would even resemble the scope of a nuclear exchange is the Yellowstone Supervolcano which Carries its own unique set of problems.
---

The bigger threat would be an emp attack disableing electronics including refrigeration. One bomb would effect a large area of the us.

Duncanwii posted...

Sabram posted...

Volcanic eruptions are frequently more intense by magnitudes than most nuclear weapons.

Volcanoes don't vaporize entire cities and leave the area radioactive for decades.The only volcano I can think of that would even resemble the scope of a nuclear exchange is the Yellowstone Supervolcano which Carries its own unique set of problems.

Pompei.
---

The keys to survival are to live away from population centers (check), military bases (check), or other high-priority targets such as nuke silos, utility hubs, etc. (check). That's to survive the explosions.

Next problem is fallout. Dust and ash will turn day into night, and will be full of radioactive particles. You need a good shelter (check), 1 month supply of food, water, basic medical supplies, and potassium iodide (check). You have to shelter until the radiation from the fallout dissipates.

If you manage to survive all of this, you still may have to travel a great distance, and defend yourself from other survivors. Electronics will be useless, because of EMPs, so unless you have built a large (perfectly designed and built) Faraday Cage that your car happened to be in at the time of the blast, you are traveling by bicycle.
---