In the event of nuclear war, what would you do?

[Bara_no_Hime]

I think you made the thread even more depressing. Like Caesar's Legion [http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110310031905/villains/images/a/ae/Vulpes.jpg]-level depressing. I think I need some ice cream. :c

That's something from Fallout (3?) right? I tried playing Fallout 3. Couldn't keep playing - it was too depressing. I know it's supposed to be tongue in cheek, but it is honestly a little too realistic for me to deal with.

I got Fallout 1 and 2 for free during a GOG sale. Haven't played them because I know I'll hate being in that sad universe.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Not much.

I live in a fairly out of the way part of Southern Australia. I likely wouldn't have much to worry about.

You might want to have fun with this http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ . It shows the effects of blast, put over a likely target and see if you survive

That was cool, thanks for the link.

 

[Dyan]

Don't know, I live in Estonia, which no one cares about anyway so I think I'd be mostly fine. If anything the capitol gets nuked and we might suffer from minor fallout.

I'd be kinda wierd if the most of the world got nuked, while I go on about my day the same as always.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I would obviously die, just not certain if quickly or slowly. As bad as people are to each other when things are well, when they go bad people get a lot worse. The police and governing bodies in Louisiana in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, for example. I'm not a killer of men, not in principle alone, but in just sheer force of will. If it came to it, in a post-nuclear wasteland where it's every man for himself I would get murdered in a hurry, of this I've not doubt, especially since I live in America, where other people are quite a bit shootier than I.

Not as much a you might think, generally a shared catastrophe brings out the best in people. Japan, after the tsunami, didn't have that sort of issues.

I think the problem with Katrina was that the people suffering knew that most of the rest of the nation wasn't suffering, but didn't seem to be concerned with helping either. You also had a big media beat up, I believe, swarms of people looting sounds more exciting than people having to steal food or starve, but it's not quite the same thing.

However, some time after the initial attacks, when a new society is coming into being (or not)...anyone's guess.

 

[General Winter]

Nothing would fundamentally change after a nuclear war. The radioactivity would be concentrated in small areas and would be gone within 48 hours. Only very concentrated population centers and military targets (troop concentrations and bunkers) would be hit. There is nothing "end of the world" about nuclear bombs.

I would have to disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

The main problem with nuclear war for most people would not be the nukes themselves, it would be the dangerous aftereffects.

Back to the original post, my city would probably be targeted, but I'm far enough from the center that I would probably not die from the initial hit.

"could have a profound and severe effect on the climate causing cold weather and reduced sunlight for a period of months or even years by the emission of large amounts of the firestorms smoke and soot into the Earth's stratosphere"

In other words, it could making heating your house cost a little more and the price of food go up a little (due to the horrors of "reduced sunlight").

I don't think you understand the profound effects of such a scenario. This could cause food crops to fail en masse. Cause mass death to plant life, and by extension, animal life. This is not something you shrug off.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

Pretty sure I'd be safe, at least for a few months. Where I live is a large town/small city, but it's out in the middle of nowhere, with it being about 50 miles away from any other town worth noting. Certainly not a hot target with any strategic assets. So, the plan would be stay put for a month, gathering up supplies, and then Iunno, move to France? If the nukes have gone off, I'd hope the government would have some plan set in place. I don't think many of us would stand a chance lone wolfing it since, y'know whole world burning and all that. (I'm assuming it isn't the apocalypse fallout style).

 

[Dr. Crawver]

I don't think you understand the profound effects of such a scenario. This could cause food crops to fail en masse. Cause mass death to plant life, and by extension, animal life. This is not something you shrug off.

I don't think you understand the uncertainty of such claims. There isn't even certainty that anything will change, much less a mass extinction. It could just as well be that the reduced sunlight just causes plants to grow a little slower, somewhat reducing yields of fields and making food cost a little more.

As nice as that would be, we unfortunately do know how volatile small changes in climate can be worldwide. For example while a rise of temperature by a few degrees might have little to no effect in a given region, if that change is worldwide the effects are drastic. As for if the sunlight is getting reduced, we also have data on that. A decade or two ago a volcano went off (I believe it was Mt saint helens), and the effects of that are still being felt today in places all over the world. That was one volcano in one part of the world affecting areas for thousands on miles. If nukes were hitting globally, those effects would not raise food prices by a small amount, it would cause a global food shortage.

You could argue that since certain areas are unhurt, it'll be fine. You might have a nearby farm or something. Just remember that in the UK and US, the vast majority of food we consume is imported. That luxury would die immediately as countries will safeguard their supplies to feed their own people.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As nice as that would be, we unfortunately do know how volatile small changes in climate can be worldwide. For example while a rise of temperature by a few degrees might have little to no effect in a given region, if that change is worldwide the effects are drastic. As for if the sunlight is getting reduced, we also have data on that. A decade or two ago a volcano went off (I believe it was Mt saint helens), and the effects of that are still being felt today in places all over the world. That was one volcano in one part of the world affecting areas for thousands on miles. If nukes were hitting globally, those effects would not raise food prices by a small amount, it would cause a global food shortage.

You could argue that since certain areas are unhurt, it'll be fine. You might have a nearby farm or something. Just remember that in the UK and US, the vast majority of food we consume is imported. That luxury would die immediately as countries will safeguard their supplies to feed their own people.

While it is correct that the effects of reduced sunlight could be drastic, I am led to believe that a nuclear war is unlikely to create that situation, at least not to any great extent. The original models for nuclear winter were, I believe, severely flawed...possibly this was intentional, to scare people off nuclear war (there seems to be a lot of misguided attempts to do this) or possibly it was because it wasn't possible to make a suitably accurate model back in the 80s.

Now, there would be a certain amount of cooling, yes, but not enough to cause that much of a concern...I believe "nuclear autumn" is the term used.

OTOH, there'd be a nuclear war, which is bad enough by itself.

 

[Drakmorg]

Thankfully I live in the middle of scenic "Fucking Nowhere", so there's barely any chance I'd die of a nuclear blast or the resulting radiation. Unless whoever is nuking us is just going 'fuck it, blow the whole place to bits' and bombs every single inhabited area, in which case, scrood.

Though I for sure won't live past the fall of civilization to happen after the destruction of all governing bodies that will surely result from nuclear war. As I said, I live in the middle of Fucking Nowhere, USA, so I'm just gonna assume that literally everyone other than me has a gun, knows how to use it, and won't have any worries over shooting me for whatever non-perishables I might have been trying to horde.

 

[xshadowscreamx]

What if this all an elaborate marketing campaign by Bethesda for fallout 4?

I'm going to watch many old timey nuclear safety videos to prepare for our impending doom.
See some of you in the wasteland, I will be wearing a badass brown cloak that gives 20% DMG to small guns an +1 to charisma.

 

[viranimus]

Honestly this is a question that has entirely too many variables and requires too much clarification to give a blanket answer.

Spoiler: Myriad of considerations

Things like. Where Am I when it occurs. Am I where I am now? Am I where I will be on the day it happens? Is this a slip of the nuke attack, or intentional full out M.A.D assault? What are the domestic targets? What would be the method of delivery? ICBM? Long range aerial bombardment? Internally co-ordinates attacks from within? How many targets? How many can the military intercept before they hit targets? How many will have to land before the opposition is either depleted or is rendered incapable of launching more salvos? etc etc etc.

I mean just hypothesizing what is usually considered considered as the "default" would be ICBM volleying. It is suggested that with strategically placed targets, you could achieve complete eradication with about 200 successful impacts. How many would need to be launched in unison that could not be intercepted by things like drones and kamikaze martyrs determined to cause impact mid flight over the Atlantic/pacific?

Spoiler: Most Relevant assumption

Lets say for arguments sake, 50 successful hits across the US. We know where the bulk of these will occur. To effectively nullify the US, you would want to eliminate the largest bulk of population center distribution to put down as many people as you can to prevent further resistance beyond the initial assault, while trying to salvage the greatest degree of territory that would be left to take over.

Spoiler: Attack Pattern U MBRELLA

So effectively you would see a " U " Shaped pattern starting in the north eastern seaboard, working its way down the coast to hit major pop centers like NYC, Washington, Philadelphia, Savannah, Most of Florida, with larger nearby inland targets selected such as Buffalo, possibly Cleveland, Charlotte, Atlanta, etc.

Then the pattern would run through the gulf states for targets like Mobile, New Orleans, Houston, Dallas headed westward to California. This also would help to obliterate much of the domestic oil production and infrastructure from any would be resistance forces that would form.

From here you would see some focus on more western targets a bit more northern. Well known military installations such as in Colorado aiming for things like NORAD and multiple military installations mostly in a straight line up the state hitting bases and population centers like Boulder, Colorado Springs, Boulder, Denver, Etc.

Also more in land along the southern border of obliteration population center targets in the deserts like Albuquerque, Tuscon, Phoenix, The hoover dam, Las Vegas for the final push to California.

When targeting California, starting from the south in San Diego, San Jose, Los Angeles, Then working its way up the coast for targets like Sacramento, San Francisco, Oakland. In this area also double back to likely make Reno/Carson city a target. Logically hits for coastal and population centers for Portland, Vancouver, SEA-TAC. Although Washington could possibly be spared as a potential "foothold" Navy port into the country with only limited population and limited military resistance.

Spoiler: U b ded

So with this U shaped pattern what this effectively does is lays down dispersal pattern to nail the bulk of population. You must consider that nukes have differing "effective ranges" You have the initial pillar of fire that has a blast radii of about 5-10 miles, The cataclysmic shock wave that will effectively obliterate things 10-50 mile radii, Radiation zone that will quickly kill off living things approx 100-200 miles radii and the disruptive EMP that dependent on geography & topography that is suggested can push outwards up to 3-5 hundred miles all dependent on age and yield of devices.

Spoiler: Aftermath in U

Now, with that manner of intended target pattern what it does is creates a border land of devastation that kills off the population in the hundreds of millions, leaving the largest bulk of the land outside of devastated areas left with only a small remnant of remaining metropolises and amply dispersed rural populations. Just as a rough estimate such an action could cut a population of 330 million effectively down to about 50 to 100 million people (largely thanks to metros like Chicago, Minnesota, Wisconsin that are right on the edge or inside of the "corn belt" that the radiation and fallout would end up doing too much damage to what was perhaps the most valuable asset in arable lands.

This leaves the "heartland" and "breadbasket" areas of the country as the initial takeover targets until nuclear wastelands would become habitable again. Large parts of Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Minn, Wisc, Mich, The great lakes, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky, Most of Ohio and West Virginia, maybe parts of Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Arkansas.

Spoiler: Oh CANADAAA!

One other effect this would have is that it leave Canada generally unaffected as well and in much the same condition as the remaining areas of the US, Canada would likely be seen as not worth provoking initially so as to focus invasion on one opponent rather than two. Likely Canada WOULD see it as a threat, but lack the military power on their own to do anything, and more likely would be more prone to act as a staging ground for resistance forces should the international community actually attempt to put a stop to the invasion.

Spoiler: Almost Heaven next door to nuclear hell

Now if this "IS" the scenario, and operating on the assumption I live where I live now, I would likely be moderately safe initially. Living in West Virginia has three major advantages regarding warfare and specifically nuclear warfare.

First is having insignificant population and woefully deficient infrastructure, So it is of little tactical or strategic value.

The second is the ONLY viable values the state has in consideration of conquest is its coal, and timber. So anyone trying to conquer the US would not view WV as worth wasting a nuke on, and would actually be preferable to keep relatively radiation free in order to exploit the natural resources.

Lastly the nature of the Appalachian mountains would act as natural topographical resistance toward blast radii. Given there are effectively no major metropolitan population centers in the state AND within a 2-5 hundred miles of most of the state (excluding of course the panhandles which would suffer because of Baltimore MD, likely Pittsburg PA (though due to its production infrastructure might be strategically spared) and absolutely Washington DC. However the Mountains effectively create the rounded Eastern border of the state and are incredibly unpopulated. In fact due to the NRAO Telescope in Greenbank Wv, there is a radio silent zone that effectively has pushed most of the local population away from the area and those areas have long since dried up as viable mining communities. So Most likely the Western and Southern parts of the state in proximity to the Huntington, Charleston, Parkersburg, Beckley Interstate corridors would be mostly unaffected thanks largely to being "behind" the mountain. Jet streams would generally push drifting fallout Eastward into the ocean rather than Westward up the mountain anyway.

Spoiler: The Remains of the Day

So, The question then becomes a matter of what the situation evolves into. Does the assault render both powerless to continue waging the fight? Or would there be a follow up invasion force to begin suppression of the remaining populous?

If it is a scenario of M.A.D. that neuters both sides and both sides are left to lick their wounds, then It would simply be a matter of rebuilding and surviving in a land that would have most of its infrastructure obliterated and forced to have to rebuild farming, manufacturing, distribution etc infrastructure. So thats the outcome that seems least relevant to the topic and as such elect to just ignore it.

Spoiler: Oh CANNNAADAAA, Part Duex

What seems relevant to the topic then would be the follow up invasion force. Now I wont lie, In such a situation if it becomes apparent that what I hypothesized is the actual scenario, I might have to be prepared to accept the countries defeat. At least if it looks as if it were to continue into air/ ground force offensive invasion was building on the devastation. If there was nothing to give any suggestion that the enemy had been even remotely has damaged as we were, then the logical course might well to be focus efforts in fleeing north to Canada to try to secure passage off the continent.

Spoiler: Homefront

But for the sake of remaining relevant to the topic, go with the assumption that there was still some hope that there would either be something left to fight for, or that there would be a chance to repel an equally wounded enemy. Now living in WV, honestly the most logical thing to do would stick with the Vietnam approach. Dig in deep into these mountains, be quick with stick and move sabatoge attacks to repel any force pushing in. Keep in with guerrilla resistance staging ambushes and capture offensive units, supplies, hardware, etc. Despite its lack of strategic value, it is perhaps one of the most naturally defensible places in the country. Outside of the "towns" its mostly woodlands that would make quagmire jungles like in Vietnam, and Un-invade-able ranges like in Paki/Afghanistan look like orderly childs play training grounds by comparison. It is also likely that given this fact and the often theorized likelihood of secret underground government bunkers, that this would most likely become the center for unifying and organizing widespread national resistance and defense. So it would likely be best to stick with local resistance because it would almost certainly be what ends up building the point from which resistance would dominantly push outward to reconnect forces, rebuild infrastructure and arguably the point of greatest safety.

Spoiler: TL;DR-esque

Now with all this... It is important to know, this is just ONE possible scenario out of any that could arise out of something with so many distinct variables that would radically alter the scenario and of course radically alter any sort of plan to adapt/compensate for the results.

However, If for what ever reason I am in a scenario where likely within that 20-150 mile radius of either quick death or slow death, I'm pretty sure what I would do is die. In fact, Even still there is a likely chance of slow death from effects of radiation. So much so that if there were enough warning and it became clear that I was say 70 miles away from a projected impact zone, and not anywhere within say another 75 miles to be expected to be reasonably unaffected, I would most likely use my time driving TOWARD the blast rather than trying to escape it. Trying to escape it and only getting on its outer fringe means a still very likely slow agonizing death. If I am going to die, I would much rather to be gone in a blink of an eye than to suffer half a decade of inhuman misery before finally wilting away. Who wants to go out like that?!

 

[ViridianV6]

Life would probably go on as per normal because nothing happens in Perth. Even the apocalypse would cancel on Perth.

Though if there was a nuclear strike and I was caught between being vaporised in the initial radius and surviving the impact but dying of radiation sickness I'd probably take the first option due to my complete intolerance to pain.

P.S. I love Perth, but it is mundane as anything.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It is suggested that with strategically placed targets, you could achieve complete eradication with about 200 successful impacts.

Hey? Eradication as in kill everyone? No...

Lets say for arguments sake, 50 successful hits across the US. We know where the bulk of these will occur. To effectively nullify the US, you would want to eliminate the largest bulk of population center distribution to put down as many people as you can to prevent further resistance beyond the initial assault, while trying to salvage the greatest degree of territory that would be left to take over.

Very dubious assumption. You're talking about killing people in advance of an invasion there, not just knocking the US out of the game. Also, a lot of the things an invader would want happen to be in or near population centres.

So with this U shaped pattern what this effectively does is lays down dispersal pattern to nail the bulk of population. You must consider that nukes have differing "effective ranges" You have the initial pillar of fire that has a blast radii of about 5-10 miles, The cataclysmic shock wave that will effectively obliterate things 10-50 mile radii, Radiation zone that will quickly kill off living things approx 100-200 miles radii and the disruptive EMP that dependent on geography & topography that is suggested can push outwards up to 3-5 hundred miles all dependent on age and yield of devices.

Er...where did you get those numbers from, and what yield are you talking about? I don't see how age is important, a device of a certain yield has a certain yield no matter it's age.

Now, with that manner of intended target pattern what it does is creates a border land of devastation that kills off the population in the hundreds of millions, leaving the largest bulk of the land outside of devastated areas left with only a small remnant of remaining metropolises and amply dispersed rural populations. Just as a rough estimate such an action could cut a population of 330 million effectively down to about 50 to 100 million people (largely thanks to metros like Chicago, Minnesota, Wisconsin that are right on the edge or inside of the "corn belt" that the radiation and fallout would end up doing too much damage to what was perhaps the most valuable asset in arable lands.

Nothing like that...nuclear devices aren't nearly that good at killing people. They are very good at killing nations, though, the US will suddenly cease to exist, whatever is rebuilt won't be the US.

So, The question then becomes a matter of what the situation evolves into. Does the assault render both powerless to continue waging the fight? Or would there be a follow up invasion force to begin suppression of the remaining populous?

There wouldn't be. The US has a very strong second strike capability, in the form of SSBN (nuclear submarines armed with ballistic missiles) lurking somewhere in the oceans of the world. Even if an enemy took out all military forces in the US before they could respond, any SSBN not in port in the US when that happens can make a hell of a mess. Also, various assets spread across the world, aircraft carriers and submarines with nuclear guided missiles come to mind, but mostly the SSBNs.

This is exactly what SSBNs are for. They are very good at it.

Even without them, the logistical problems of invading the US, even if it was uninhabited, are no small things. The US military has the greatest logistical capability in the world, and I think they couldn't do it (besides actually being in the US).

However, If for what ever reason I am in a scenario where likely within that 20-150 mile radius of either quick death or slow death, I'm pretty sure what I would do is die. In fact, Even still there is a likely chance of slow death from effects of radiation. So much so that if there were enough warning and it became clear that I was say 70 miles away from a projected impact zone, and not anywhere within say another 75 miles to be expected to be reasonably unaffected, I would most likely use my time driving TOWARD the blast rather than trying to escape it. Trying to escape it and only getting on its outer fringe means a still very likely slow agonizing death. If I am going to die, I would much rather to be gone in a blink of an eye than to suffer half a decade of inhuman misery before finally wilting away. Who wants to go out like that?!

Not true. 70 miles is a very safe distance from most devices as it is. Simple precautions can save you if you are closer. If you find a nice hole to hide in, you could get out unscathed...you'd have to hide in it for a few days and clean out any particulate matter that comes in, but it could well save you. During the Cold War, people dug holes in their backyards if they couldn't afford proper shelters. This would have saved lots of lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions

Yeah, I know, only wiki, but still...for a 20MT device (and nobody uses devices that big anymore, devices with single digit megatons of yield are uncommon), 70 miles is plenty far enough.

Nuclear devices aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be. The effects of suddenly having no infrastructure, however, are much worse and generally glossed over.

 

[JaceArveduin]

Let's see... I'm about 20 miles away from a small air force base south of the middle of the US, and the only cities large enough that they might actually bother bombing are all at least 60 miles away... not including the fact there's some "mountainous" terrain in the way.

"Mountainous" meaning their called mountains, but after seeing the Rockies, and to a lesser extent the Appalachians, they're really just glorified hills.

 

[Do4600]

Die.


But to avoid a low content warning I'll tell you why; my kidneys failed when I was 20 years old, I require a highly specialized and expensive medication to survive. In a survival situation I would have to move from drug store to drug store which would almost certainly be the most dangerous places to be. Even if I survived for a few years doing that, all of the manufactured medication would eventually pass the point where they were effective and I would die within a month. Besides that, a nuclear wasteland would almost certainly be an incredibly depressing place, more depressing than the deepest, darkest concentration camp; any thinking person would be reduced to tears on a daily basis.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

That's something from Fallout (3?) right? I tried playing Fallout 3. Couldn't keep playing - it was too depressing.

Nooo, you really should, they are lovely games, and grossly exaggerated
I am going to play 2 right after i finish writing


As for me, i would get a something like a Ruger 10/22 and start hoarding food medicine and ammo while trying to find a farm that could sustain me during the winter, assuming i dont bail to to the Canary Islands or whatever
I live in Kalix, not exactly the most important place in the known universe, the only major military base that is even in my part of the world is in Boden, and that would probably not even get involved since we are neutral Sweden

 

[Johnny Impact]

I'm 10 miles from a port town, and there's a base nearby, Navy or Coast Guard or something. Depending on the power of the bomb, what I would do is be burned to death instantly or inflicted with gut-liquefying radiation sickness.

I'm not sure where the city ranks on the list of probable targets, how many bombs would have to be launched before one would be sent there. If we didn't get a bomb, we're far enough away from the next city not to worry about instant death. The prevailing wind does blow from there towards us, though....

Assuming I didn't die in the short term, I wouldn't be trying to evacuate. Probably I wouldn't hear about the attack until after most people, as I don't give half a shit about the news. That means the supermarkets would already be mobbed, maybe even cleared out. The highways would already be disaster areas. Too late to stock up on groceries or get out of town, then.

Assuming there was electricity and water, I would have a month's worth of food in my home. What I would need is a portable stove, fuel, a water filter. Maybe some kind of radiation detector, depending on where the bombs fell.

Can't really say what I would do, as it would depend heavily on just how badly America got hit.

 

[Epicspoon]

If we even got to the point where war was a possibility I would say "Fuck it" and get the hell out of dodge and by dodge I mean the united states. If the oceans don't get polluted with nuclear fallout too badly probably Japan. Not because It's somewhere I want to visit but because it's not directly connected to either country by land. Japan may suck for foreigners but a country at war sucks infinitely more.

If the oceans DO get polluted horribly with nuclear fallout then not japan. one of their main exports is fish meaning if the ocean went to shit the country would be in a lot of trouble financially and food would become expensive as all hell. So after that...... I have no idea. I can't think of another relatively safe place that I could tolerate.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Nooo, you really should, they are lovely games, and grossly exaggerated
I am going to play 2 right after i finish writing

I really can't.

I played through quite a lot of 3, but it was this weird sensation of mixed joy and despair. Joy at the gameplay, despair at the world. Everything I did felt very pointless and hollow.

And then I played Skyrim (and later Oblivion) and... it was the opposite. I felt like what I did mattered and the joy in those games was unmitigated by anything but the occasional frustration of accidentally stealing things while trying to talk to people or missions where the game acts like it's going to give me a choice and then yanks it out from under me. (I refer to the quest in Oblivion where you're supposed to get a stolen ring back from an all-female gang near Anvil and the only option is to kill them all - I really wanted to join the gang, damn it!)

 

[Nickolai77]

I'd fetch my bow and drive off into the Welsh mountains and camp out there- scavenging supplies from small towns with unpronounceable names and hunting irradiated sheep.