Aliens Have Conquered Earth

[Agow95]

The problem with this is that it takes 4 years to get to earth from the nearest star to us at the speed of light, and as you have said we have nuclear weapons, it would be easier to harvest Mars, as travelling for 4 years and getting minerals is better than travelling for 4 years and getting nuked.
Edit: or hundreds of years if they're aliens from beyond our closest stars

 

[Treblaine]

An interesting thing I read in a US nuclear survival thing, the amount of cancer caused by a nuclear exchange between the US and USSR in the 80s would be less than the amount of cancer prevented if wearing hats outdoors became a worldwide fashion.

That's probably propaganda, especially considering the fallout from thermonuclear weapons is much much higher than from the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A global nuclear war would just release so much radioactive material that would spread and saturate everywhere. For example when bombardment is so wide that the fallout paths overlap each other, then you can't avoid them. It goes EVERYWHERE, like pollen.

There is the point that multiple cities and critical points (like power stations and reservoirs) being bombarded by nuclear weapons adds up to the greater than the sum of its parts.

For example: if JUST Las Angeles suffered nuclear bombardment, resources of San Francisco, San Diego and Sacramento and so on would be able to take casualties, send help and treat the millions of people with burn and blast injuries. But if all the major cities west of the Rockies get atomic bombardment all at the same time then they can't lean on each other. You can't flee the fallout path from one explosion without wandering into another, as the prevailing northeast wind would take the fallout up river, most of the water supply would be contaminated and without the infrastructure to filter enough of it fast enough as it would be needed.

See a part of acute radiation poisoning is extreme susceptibility to infection. You see this in hospital with controlled whole body irradiation to severely affect the immune system as well as the gastrointestinal tract. Combined with loss of resources and forced into cramped shelters disease would be devastating. In 1961 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the immediate deaths from a nuclear war would be 600 million people (see RAND institute), and that was before the utter collapse in infrastructure leading to mass famine and economic and ecological collapse.

If there was a nuclear war, you have similar chances of surviving as playing Russian roulette... but loading the gun with 5 bullets rather than just one. You'll probably die, and most of your family and friends as well.

 

[Thaluikhain]

That's probably propaganda, especially considering the fallout from thermonuclear weapons is much much higher than from the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A global nuclear war would just release so much radioactive material that would spread and saturate everywhere. For example when bombardment is so wide that the fallout paths overlap each other, then you can't avoid them. It goes EVERYWHERE, like pollen.

I don't know about that. Yes, more powerful weapons will be used, but the world has seen an awful lot of above ground nuclear weapons tests, and although there have been quite a number of cancer cases cause, naturally occuring cancer is quite common. Apparently 1 in 5 US citizens will get skin cancer in their lifetime. Cancer caused by fallout might be a serious problem, but not that serious.

Though, yes, fallout will spread everywhere.

There is the point that multiple cities and critical points (like power stations and reservoirs) being bombarded by nuclear weapons adds up to the greater than the sum of its parts.

For example: if JUST Las Angeles suffered nuclear bombardment, resources of San Francisco, San Diego and Sacramento and so on would be able to take casualties, send help and treat the millions of people with burn and blast injuries. But if all the major cities west of the Rockies get atomic bombardment all at the same time then they can't lean on each other.

Oh, certainly, yes, it's not just the initial attacks, it's how well they cope with things afterwards.

If there was a nuclear war, you have similar chances of surviving as playing Russian roulette... but loading the gun with 5 bullets rather than just one. You'll probably die, and most of your family and friends as well.

Actually, no, I have a good chance of surviving. I don't happen to live near anywhere of strategic importance, in a minor nation in the middle of nowhere that happens to be the dominant military force in its local area. Mind you, the Soviets targeted the odd missile here, either under their "sharing the pain" doctrine, or because we hosted US military stuff (including a few nuclear tests...the US wanted to test VX on local soldiers, but fortunately this didn't happen. They did test mustard gas on them in WW2, though).

There'd be all sorts of terrible economic and political ramifications, of course, but I'm in a reasonably good place to ride things out. And as long as people survive here, or in some other isolated part of the world, the species survives.

 

[Imthatguy]

FUCK IT KILL 'EM ALL (What I said when someone asked me what Avatar II's plot should be)

FUCK IT KILL 'EM ALL (What I say to any problem involving alien species)

STEAL THEIR TECH IF WE HAVE TIME AND THEN KILL' EM ALL (What I say to any situation involving unbeatable aliens)

Yes I am a xenophobe (The kind against different species) and proud of it

 

[Treblaine]

That's probably propaganda, especially considering the fallout from thermonuclear weapons is much much higher than from the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A global nuclear war would just release so much radioactive material that would spread and saturate everywhere. For example when bombardment is so wide that the fallout paths overlap each other, then you can't avoid them. It goes EVERYWHERE, like pollen.

I don't know about that. Yes, more powerful weapons will be used, but the world has seen an awful lot of above ground nuclear weapons tests, and although there have been quite a number of cancer cases cause, naturally occuring cancer is quite common. Apparently 1 in 5 US citizens will get skin cancer in their lifetime. Cancer caused by fallout might be a serious problem, but not that serious.

Though, yes, fallout will spread everywhere.

There is the point that multiple cities and critical points (like power stations and reservoirs) being bombarded by nuclear weapons adds up to the greater than the sum of its parts.

For example: if JUST Las Angeles suffered nuclear bombardment, resources of San Francisco, San Diego and Sacramento and so on would be able to take casualties, send help and treat the millions of people with burn and blast injuries. But if all the major cities west of the Rockies get atomic bombardment all at the same time then they can't lean on each other.

Oh, certainly, yes, it's not just the initial attacks, it's how well they cope with things afterwards.

If there was a nuclear war, you have similar chances of surviving as playing Russian roulette... but loading the gun with 5 bullets rather than just one. You'll probably die, and most of your family and friends as well.

Actually, no, I have a good chance of surviving. I don't happen to live near anywhere of strategic importance, in a minor nation in the middle of nowhere that happens to be the dominant military force in its local area. Mind you, the Soviets targeted the odd missile here, either under their "sharing the pain" doctrine, or because we hosted US military stuff (including a few nuclear tests...the US wanted to test VX on local soldiers, but fortunately this didn't happen. They did test mustard gas on them in WW2, though).

There'd be all sorts of terrible economic and political ramifications, of course, but I'm in a reasonably good place to ride things out. And as long as people survive here, or in some other isolated part of the world, the species survives.

So many currently die of cancer as We have beaten tuberculosis, common bacterial infections and can inoculate against the flu, but cancer is still so hard to treat so it's the way so many go... this is part of the human condition to eventually die when you are very old.

The cancer from a global nuclear war will kill a huge proportion of ALL children exposed from thyroid cancer and leukaemia and young fit people who should have a very low chance of dying from cancer. The cancer rate will be so high all at once it will be impossible to properly treat as it is so hard to treat. if cancer were detected in the femur, expensive treatment would be out of the question, the medics would have no choice but to amputate and bone cancers would be VERY common due to how much Strontium-90 thermonuclear bombs spurt out and how hard it is to load a diet with calcium that biologically reduces absorption. Don't conflate dying from cancer near the end of your natural life with dying from cancer directly caused by radioactive fallout. Remember, the fallout from a nuclear war would be greater than the sum of multiple Chernobyl or Hiroshima disasters as they stack over each other.

Atmosphere exposed nuclear testing was banned for a reason, to spite testing in the most remote places on earth and always when the winds would result in most containment of fallout, the levels of radioisotopes in people's bodies were getting unacceptably high. You could detect it in children's milk teeth. There was a moratorium in the late 50's then Partial test ban treaty in 1963. We are still living with this legacy, now all fossil and otherwise reserved remains or rock strata can be divided into "pre-1945" or "post 1945" from how pervasive the nuclear fallout was.

Well you seem to be in a position to weigh the odds in your favour, but in general the odds for each human in a nuclear war are poor.

A small island would suffer terribly if cut off from international trade, supplies of fuel would likely end for many decades, US and Soviet submarines were highly evolved for taking out shipping, and if they tried a convoy system they'd be decimated by high yield nuclear weapons.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So many currently die of cancer as We have beaten tuberculosis, common bacterial infections and can inoculate against the flu, but cancer is still so hard to treat so it's the way so many go... this is part of the human condition to eventually die when you are very old.

The cancer from a global nuclear war will kill a huge proportion of ALL children exposed from thyroid cancer and leukaemia and young fit people who should have a very low chance of dying from cancer. The cancer rate will be so high all at once it will be impossible to properly treat as it is so hard to treat. if cancer were detected in the femur, expensive treatment would be out of the question, the medics would have no choice but to amputate and bone cancers would be VERY common due to how much Strontium-90 thermonuclear bombs spurt out and how hard it is to load a diet with calcium that biologically reduces absorption. Don't conflate dying from cancer near the end of your natural life with dying from cancer directly caused by radioactive fallout.

That's true, and we have the luxury of hospitals and infrastructure at the moment.

Well you seem to be in a position to weigh the odds in your favour, but in general the odds for each human in a nuclear war are poor.

A small island would suffer terribly if cut off from international trade, supplies of fuel would likely end for many decades, US and Soviet submarines were highly evolved for taking out shipping, and if they tried a convoy system they'd be decimated by high yield nuclear weapons.

Well, using SSNs to disrupt trade is more of a long term thing, under various theories of how WW3 would play out things would be over before they were brought into play. I don't know of any doctrine that would use nuclear weapons, especially high yield ones, to attack convoys.

In any case, using submarines to attack civilian transport ships seems rather odd nowdays, they are more designed with hunting military vessels to mind, lots of easier way of dealing with civilian vessels.

In any case, yes, things would utterly suck, but they'd be survivable, I meant. The species would survive.

 

[Treblaine]

Well, using SSNs to disrupt trade is more of a long term thing, under various theories of how WW3 would play out things would be over before they were brought into play. I don't know of any doctrine that would use nuclear weapons, especially high yield ones, to attack convoys.

In any case, using submarines to attack civilian transport ships seems rather odd nowdays, they are more designed with hunting military vessels to mind, lots of easier way of dealing with civilian vessels.

In any case, yes, things would utterly suck, but they'd be survivable, I meant. The species would survive.

That's probably because convoy system would not be used... BECAUSE of the threat of nuclear weapons.

It was odd to attack civilian ships back in the First and Second World Wars, but it was still done to spite the contravention of treaties and to a huge extent and with no regrets because of the situation and pressure, global nuclear war would be an even more extreme situation. Have no doubt that after a country has ordered a nuclear holocaust of mainly civilians and they have killed so many of your own countrymen, what's a few crew members transporting "war materiel" on top of that? If they can strangle off the oil supply to their enemies then they shall.

The human species may survive, but society would not, and it is precisely modern human society that makes humans so valuable. The world will become much like Afghanistan under the worst of Taliban rule, or Somalia. The nice guys aren't going to prevail, the good squirrels that prepared for winter will get torn apart by the wolves and they will inherit the earth. Expect extremist religion of all faiths to take hold in a time of such widespread death and suffering. It's little exaggeration to say nuclear war will be of biblical proportions, it will play into all the religions that play into doomsday and catastrophe tales and give the promise of eternal life after death.

Humans will survive, but the type that will survive will be the most ruthless, selfish and oppressive. I don't value humans because they are humans, I value good people and beneficial society. Surviving is not enough. Prevention is the only cure for civilisation from the danger of nuclear war.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It was odd to attack civilian ships back in the First and Second World Wars, but it was still done to spite the contravention of treaties and to a huge extent and with no regrets because of the situation and pressure, global nuclear war would be an even more extreme situation. Have no doubt that after a country has ordered a nuclear holocaust of mainly civilians and they have killed so many of your own countrymen, what's a few crew members transporting "war materiel" on top of that? If they can strangle off the oil supply to their enemies then they shall.

That's true, but I meant that submarines probably wouldn't be the most efficient way of doing that.

The human species may survive, but society would not, and it is precisely modern human society that makes humans so valuable. The world will become much like Afghanistan under the worst of Taliban rule, or Somalia. The nice guys aren't going to prevail, the good squirrels that prepared for winter will get torn apart by the wolves and they will inherit the earth. Expect extremist religion of all faiths to take hold in a time of such widespread death and suffering. It's little exaggeration to say nuclear war will be of biblical proportions, it will play into all the religions that play into doomsday and catastrophe tales and give the promise of eternal life after death.

Humans will survive, but the type that will survive will be the most ruthless, selfish and oppressive. I don't value humans because they are humans, I value good people and beneficial society. Surviving is not enough. Prevention is the only cure for civilisation from the danger of nuclear war.

Oh, I tend to agree with that (though I could imagine civilisation, or something not totally unlike it surviving in many areas), but providing the human race survives, civilisation will be developed again. It'd put things back a few hundred years, but not permanently.

 

[dangoball]

I for one welcome our alien overlords

Yes! I can't believe it took 34 post for someone to say that. After all by that time those aliens are most likely in "all your bases are belong to us" mode, so why resist

Probably, as humanity would survive (even after a massive beating) and the aliens would hopefully back off. Depends on how hard it was to fire all the nukes though, preferably there'd be some nice big red button to press, which unleashed several thousand untold horrors upon whoever pressed it. Sort of like this one

Free apocalypse ==============>

Damn you! DAMN YOU!!!! XD

 

[Dr.Fantastic]

Screw the Nuclear Arsenal, I shall throw Pancakes at the aliens, for no one can withstand the raw power of PANCAKES!

 

[Shinsei-J]

I shall attack.them head on with nothing but a chip on my shoulder and my impervious plot armor.
Their weapoms will be picked up easly, leaving us on equal ground.
Thus I shall win due to my moral support and Wiskers my dog.
All that is left is to rebuild.

O wait never mind here's the nuke button... *BOOM*

 

[Treblaine]

Oh, I tend to agree with that (though I could imagine civilisation, or something not totally unlike it surviving in many areas), but providing the human race survives, civilisation will be developed again. It'd put things back a few hundred years, but not permanently.

Few hundreds years is still industrial age, it'll take mankind back thousands of years. Humanity wouldn't have seen a single worst disaster since the Bubonic Plague, and the earth will not have seen such a catastrophe in all of human history.

It's little solace that "humanity will survive" considering how hard we worked to get where we are, it will almost all be undone.

 

[Emperor Inferno]

The answer is simple. I ignore the nukes and simply inform Master Chief.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Few hundreds years is still industrial age, it'll take mankind back thousands of years. Humanity wouldn't have seen a single worst disaster since the Bubonic Plague, and the earth will not have seen such a catastrophe in all of human history.

I disagree that it will send humanity back thousands of years, but yes, worse disaster in history.

It's little solace that "humanity will survive" considering how hard we worked to get where we are, it will almost all be undone.

Well, depends on your point of view. It's a disaster, yes, but total extinction is much worse, IMHO

 

[Treblaine]

Few hundreds years is still industrial age, it'll take mankind back thousands of years. Humanity wouldn't have seen a single worst disaster since the Bubonic Plague, and the earth will not have seen such a catastrophe in all of human history.

I disagree that it will send humanity back thousands of years, but yes, worse disaster in history.

It's little solace that "humanity will survive" considering how hard we worked to get where we are, it will almost all be undone.

Well, depends on your point of view. It's a disaster, yes, but total extinction is much worse, IMHO

Well that's pointless relativism as total extinction is THE WORST outcome.

"You shouldn't be upset you lost your legs in a wood chipper, at least all off of humanity hasn't gone extinct"

And there are worse things than death, if the people who carry on humanity are sick sadistic psychopaths in a world of near endless suffering, it's a poor choice between that and death.

 

[Surpheal]

Step one: Find every cauldera(?) that is near the crust surface.

Step two: Find out which ones are probable to cause a super eruption if prodded enough.

Step three: Move all nuclear warheads via ground forces, or if target is overseas via ship. Do this as a precaution some that they may not be shot down upon re-entry into Earths atmosphere by an alien ship. While doing this, begin to horde all necessary resources.

Step four: Coordinate detonation times to be within a minute at the most.

Step five: IF cauldera reactivation occurs, hunker down and hope that they will be driven off by either: Volcanic ash, dropping temperatures, any possible biological resource dying, the obscuring of the surface from orbit.

IF cauldera reactivation does not occur, find alternate plan.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Few hundreds years is still industrial age, it'll take mankind back thousands of years. Humanity wouldn't have seen a single worst disaster since the Bubonic Plague, and the earth will not have seen such a catastrophe in all of human history.

I disagree that it will send humanity back thousands of years, but yes, worse disaster in history.

It's little solace that "humanity will survive" considering how hard we worked to get where we are, it will almost all be undone.

Well, depends on your point of view. It's a disaster, yes, but total extinction is much worse, IMHO

Well that's pointless relativism as total extinction is THE WORST outcome.

"You shouldn't be upset you lost your legs in a wood chipper, at least all off of humanity hasn't gone extinct"

And there are worse things than death, if the people who carry on humanity are sick sadistic psychopaths in a world of near endless suffering, it's a poor choice between that and death.

But such a state of affairs isn't likely to last that long. People argue about the starting point of history/civilisation, but around 13,000 years ago isn't a bad guess.

A few more centuries of barbarism is terrible, yes, but compared to 13,000 years, and however long humanity has to look forwards to after that, it's not that big. If mankind dies out, it has died out forever.

...

Though, that's getting rather academic and philosophical.

 

[samaugsch]

Why isn't 'attack the aliens with the nukes' an option?

I've actually watched a documentary about it. Said something about their ships being impervious to nuclear strikes due to traveling through space or something.

 

[Reiper]

Do you guys remember that Keanu Reeves movie "the day the earth stood still"?

So the consensus seems to be they probably wouldn't want our resources. Though what if they have come to "save" the planet from us by killing us.

As they are exterminating us, would you destroy the planet's ecosystems with nukes then?

I would. To show that although we may have been beaten, their efforts were in vain, and that destroying us was pointless. It would be a massively symbolic middle finger to these douchebag aliens, to show them that if we can't have earth, noone can.

 

[Don Savik]

Depends on the alien. If its a hivemind army of purely living organisms then I would. Otherwise.....probably not. I like living thank you very much.

And would nuking them really stop reinforcements from coming? I doubt they would attack a planet with their ENTIRE SPECIES. I for one accept our new alien overlords.