How come no movies addressed the fact that nukes are just frickhuge bombs that even if launched simultaneously could not seriously damage human population? Even if you put everyone in cities and nuke them all with all the concrete and stuff less than one third of humanity would perish. Nevermind millions of small population centers no one would bother bombing. And don't give me that crap about radiation, these are bombs nut fuel rods. Anyway why aren't there any movies about post-launch world?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Nukes don't exist, biggest psyop ever done.
Other countries don’t exist. America is just one great big Truman Show.
>every major super power is in on the same lie!!!
>all of the nuke test videos are fake!
Correct.
Yes, the world is controlled by one government and they perpetuate the lie to keep power.
We intentionally gave cancer to a portion of Utah with fake Nuc test. There is not a crater 3 football fields across and 1 football field deep in the Nevada test site ( Sudan Crater ) that had it's faked footage used in Austin Powers.
Nucs are not fake.
Alot of that footage was also used in the ending of Dr. Strangelove (1964)
based
It's not real fricking shill. kys
These people need to fricking realize that they're going to die and the world will move on without them.
Literally how
There are movies about post launch world, thread is a good one.
As for nukes themselves, we have enough to make life on earth a living hell, that's for certain.
Doubt that. Bombing of Dresden is like the worst possible scenario for a nuke drop on city and there are not enough nukes to make a serious dent in the civilization.
Nukes have long lasting effects on health, and if we were to use many of them at once, they'd have serious effects on the environment too (nuclear winter). Acute radiation syndrome is one of the worst possible affliction you could get. Just because your house isn't totally destroyed doesn't mean the bomb didn't have any effect.
>(nuclear winter)
parrots theory bullshit, i sincerely wish i could believe the bullshit people not just here but anywhere actually believe blindly
How is it bullshit?
>Bombing of Dresden is like the worst possible scenario for a nuke drop on city
Dresden was terrible but the Hiroshima bomb killed twice as many people in literally 2 seconds
I might be an ignoramus here but wouldn't the dropping of a nuclear bomb on a city that actually happened be the worst possible scenario for a nuke drop on a city
yknow the real event that happened twice that we can look at for the kind of devastation caused
So you not realise how many thousands and thousands of nukes exist between America, Russia, and the other nuclear powers? Not to mention H-bombs and others shit?
No nukes. Die.
there's the nuclear winter but ya, I think its overblown, most people think
>nukes can destroy the entire planet
climate change too
I say with some arrogance that I don't think you can wipe out humans, were too advanced. You would have to have some sci-fi super comet slam into the earth and literally blow it up.
Humans are much more fragile than you'd think, millions of people are currently threatened by starvation because of a war in a small eastern European country. Think about that for a second. The modern world is a well oiled machine, but break one of its cogs, and you'll see how dysfunctional it can get.
Now I can't tell exactly what nuclear war would bring, nobody can, but it most likely would deprive you of civilization, if you survive.
yeah but none of that will wipe humans out, just put a dent in their numbers. we're a resilient bunch, and I think that anon is right that even a frickin nuclear holocaust wouldn't be the end, it would take something a lot bigger
Honestly, I think it depends on what is used.
A few nukes on major cities, perhaps we would survive as a species, but even only that would make life extremely difficult for those who survive.
Now use the entire nuclear arsenal on earth, and we're fricked 6 times over.
And the problem is that more and more countries have autonomous access to nuclear weapons, even a medium nuclear power like France could absolutely end life as we know it.
>yfw some shitskin gets to hit the red button and end the world
USA is blacker than Europe.
Yeah, and India has nukes, what's your point? I wasn't explicitly referring to Europe, we could just as easily (and probably will) frick the world up beyond repair, or Pakistan and India could get in a tizzy.
>break one of its cogs
i think you mean unpick one of its THREADS
Ukrainian wheat goes to Africa and Black folk aren't human
A nuclear war will NOT create a nuclear winter that theory was designed by Carl Sagan to promote disarmament, it has no basis in reality. I think we should start using tactical nuclear weapons, it will make war a LOT easier.
unironically this, also make them accessible to consumers I want to use my McNuke
Shall not be infringed!
The nuclear winter is literally bunk science shat out by the KGB to scare westoids into dismantling their nuclear arsenal. It’s fuddlore at this point.
Right, and the US military just drank the soviet propaganda up without verifying it despite being the very organisation that invented nukes?
I swear sometimes I really feel like conspirationists really lack a basic functioning brain.
There are declassified reports where the CIA called bullshit. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000284025.pdf
It’s not a conspiracy theory, you stupid fricking homosexual; it’s wartime propaganda that you gobbled up. The key aspect of “le nuclear winter of d00m” is the projection that burning cities would propagate an enormous amount of soot (not nukes flinging dirt into the atmosphere). This was based on over conservative computer model with bad data. The Australian brush fire has all but dispelled the key parameter.
Nuclear war would still have a ton of secondary deaths because our infrastructure would be fricked. Stop being an ignorant moron parroting soviet propaganda from over half a century ago.
Right, and the US (and pretty much every nation on earth) is still parroting the propaganda of the dead soviet state for fun, right?
The US spent billions in keeping its nuclear arsenal working, never used in the last 75 years, and all this time they just knew it was a glorified conventional weapon that could have been used effectively in pretty much all the wars they fought those last 75 years? Good think we have internet geniuses like you, the US army should recruit on Cinemaphile
>The US spent billions in keeping its nuclear arsenal working, never used in the last 75 years, and all this time they just knew it was a glorified conventional weapon that could have been used effectively in pretty much all the wars they fought those last 75 years?
How the frick did you get that from my post? You actually are genuinely stupid.
If the US isn't actually frightened of nuclear power as a massive force of destruction then why is MAD the only field of application of American nukes? Answer that question if you're not borderline moronic.
just because nuclear winter might not be real doesn't mean nukes wouldn't still be devastating to the entire planet you smoothbrained dipshit
So let me get this straight, the soviet invented the idea of nuclear winter to make the west believe their nuclear arsenal could be devastating to the entire planet, while in reality nukes are themselves truly and genuinely devastating to the entire planet (as you said it yourself)?
Do you see how it makes no sense yet?
I never said nukes aren’t extremely dangerous. I said that nuclear winter is a meme based on meme science. I din’t know why you can’t separate the two. Nukes can flatten cities and the frick up in supply lines alone would lead to massive famine. It wont make the earth turn into a giant ice cube though.
The reason why they’re only applicable in MAD is due to the fact that they’re city destroying weapons. Short of all out world war, modern military doctrine calls for extremely small yield precision weapons so that you don’t kill a bunch of civilians.
I don’t know what part of “nuclear war is a meme” makes you think that nukes aren’t extremely powerful and made you fly into a strawmanning fit.
Even if nuclear winter wasn't real, the radiation poisoning is enough to screw the remaining humans, radiation would be everywhere in the atmosphere, kids would be born dead or with horrible difformities. Chernobyl gave cancer to people in France for decades, and that was thousands of miles away. Sure, a nuke releases much less radiation, but thousands of them? We'd be fricked.
There's no nukes.
it was funny the first couple times, now it's getting pathetic
There's nothing funny about you trying to scare the population of the world of humans into doing what you say with this threat of all powerful weapons. Die.
bot
>"I am le based Cinemaphile contrarian homosexual, I am protecting le freedom by reading Twitter screencaps, if people call me moronic for downplaying the power of nukes, could it be that I am genuinely moronic? No, no! The nukes must be fake."
A truly superior individual.
>contrarian
>twitter
Nice buzzwords. Why don't you tie a fricking noose, now.
Because I'm not a pathetic borderline moronic frick. I enjoy my life as a non moronic individual, why exactly would I want to tie a noose? You should stop projecting.
You should tie a noose since you come here to shill lies to try to control humanity. Frick you.
You have way bigger issues than me coming here, trust me. You should get off the internet for a while, and I say it without an ounce of malicious intentions.
After all, isn't internet itself the biggest mind controlling tool?
I'm immune to mind control.
They don't have the technology to do it at will. Especially not by dropping it.
im sorry to disagree but there is video of them doing it multiple times. how do you explain that?
>I'm immune to mind control
If you truly were you'd know no one really is, but then again you trade shitty sources for even shittier sources for the sole sake of being contrarian, so I don't think you've reached that level yet.
>contrarian
There's that word again. You can't comprehend that I don't believe in your propaganda so you say I am contrarian for being different.
I don't call you contrarian because you're different, I call you contrarian because you are contrarian. Tell me, where does your nuke knowledge comes from? First hand experience? You worked on them? Most likely not, you just read some garbage on the internet and you so badly wanted to feel above the mass that you gobbled it all up. That's perhaps the worst thing about conspirationists, I usually like someone able to think outside of the norm, someone that shows genuine thoughts and reflection.
But you guys never do, and you yourself have done none of that, where is your proof, where are your compelling arguments? You ain't got jack except for a false sense of superiority. You just shit out what's been shat in your ears by the previous guy, and whenever someone contradicts you, you never actually entertain the possibly that you might be wrong, like a genuinely smart person would, you just make up in your own mind that it's probably a shill, or an NPC, or whatever helps you cope.
In that way you're no better than the average boomer who gets his news from fox news, you just stand closer to the screen, that's it.
I intuit my knowledge. Right now you are appealing to authority.
>where are your compelling arguments?
That nukes were made up to scare russia by USA and then went out of control. There's no all powerful weapon.
That's not a compelling argument.
Of course nukes were engineered with the threat of communism in mind, but that doesn't explain why the threat of nuclear warfare would be viewed so dangerously by major powers if it they weren't truly dangerous.
Why exactly would there not be an all powerful weapon? That's just wishful thinking.
>but that doesn't explain why the threat of nuclear warfare would be viewed so dangerously by major powers if it they weren't truly dangerous.
Normal warfare is dangerous.
>Why exactly would there not be an all powerful weapon?
Because it's moronic in the unbelievable and convenient.
>There's no all powerful weapon.
Why wouldn't there be? You could maybe make some stupid case that fission bombs don't exist but radiation certainly does. Bombs salted with radioactive material would be pretty deadly regardless.
Impossible to control where it goes, when, etc. And not as dangerous as actual nuclear problems like one in the ukraine.
>bleep-bloop golbohomosexual says nukes are bad
but anyone with basic physics education knows that the bombs trigger effect is based on real observed phenomena
radiation would only be a problem in the areas directly hit by several nukes. large countries or those with few hits will be fine.
radiation decreases with distance and most of it will decrease rapidly in the following months
fallout dust can travel far under some circumstances, and cancer rates will increase, but its not an immediate concern in most scenarios
ash and smoke from burning buildings in general will do far more immediate damage to people. cancer is just a probability in the decades to come
No nukes. No danger. Frick off.
Yes, there are tons of practical problems that would lead to doomsdays tier events if we went into all out nuclear war. Anyone who isn’t living under a rock today should be able to conceptualize how fricked things would be if even one of our ports were nuked much less all of them.
Nuclear winter is a meme but nukes themselves aren’t a joke. I don’t understand why people seethe so hard when someone points it out.
>I don’t understand why people seethe so hard when someone points it out.
because you're just being a pedantic "uhm ackschually...." homosexual trying to get your dopamine hit. you're contributing nothing to the discussion
Ah got it, so if I say that nukes will cover the earth in cum and everyone will drown in it you’d be a pedant for calling that ridiculous. Got it.
>look at this ridiculous strawman! i win again xD
here's your last reply buddy
It’s about as far fetched and scientifically grounded as nuclear winter theory, it’s an apt comparison. Glad I could teach you the word strawman though.
i learned strawman from reaming your mother last night. she's a pretty smart woman, you should respect her more
>how fricked things would be if even one of our ports were nuked much less all of them
Bingo. Remember when a few west coast ports got backed up and entire shelves at stores were empty? Now extrapolate that to the destruction of every major economic and industrial center in the northern hemisphere. Not to mention widespread destruction of the roads, railways, and airports needed to transport the produce grown by Joe Farmer to the grocery stores where 97% of contemporary humanity gets its food.
>could have been used effectively in pretty much all the wars
For which of the US wars would nukes have been useful? Did the US aim to completely wipe out some sandBlack person city? If that was the case, was there ever a reason to use nukes over any other cheaper conventional, more precise option?
The US certainly did try to wipe out the Vietnamese jungle to disrupt the ho chi minh trail, nukes would have done wonders there.
>and the US military just drank the soviet propaganda up without verifying
Yeah. The US aren’t as smart as they want you to think. They are also full of Russian spies and Communist sympathizers.
stop asking question OP
this was confirmed fake. model city with many layers of computer effects and special camera tricks.
no it wasnt, you schizo
sure
where is this?
Beirut
of course
>no huge wave afterwards
>car windshield doesn't even break
thanks for proving it's fake losers
>car windshield doesn't even break
What the frick is aerodynamics?
>no huge wave afterwards
Explosion happen on land dimwit
>What the frick is aerodynamics?
israeli psyops
>Explosion happen on land dimwit
It SUPPOSEDLY happened right next to the water
>no huge wave afterwards
it's a 15 second clip exactly how fast do you think waves travel
the pressure wave in the air doesn't even reach the boat in the time it takes for the video to complete
What the frick was this, an ammunition plant?
poop, that's why we flush
A conventionnal chemical explosion.
And you want to know the funny part? This somewhat small explosion is still crippling the Lebanese economy to this day, you have people in Beirut living on food stamps in direct consequence of this explosion because it disrupted the port exploitation so much that the entire country never recovered. Granted, it's also because of corruption (the damage was never really fixed), but still, corruption exists everywhere in the world, and the Lebanese economy would be in a much better shape without this explosion.
And then you have conspiracy gays telling you that dropping nukes all over the planet would be A-Ok.
lebanon is a special kind of hell regarding corruption and mismanagement, the country was in shambles decades before the harbor explosion, it even happened precisely because people in charge didnt give a shit about the hundreds of tons of fertilizer rotting on the docks with no safety precautions.
nukes do damage, and enough of them can collapse civil order, but a country that has its shit together can overcome even the worst of damage
>but a country that has its shit together
so like maybe 10 countries at best, and USA is not one of them, that's for sure.
this explosion will always look cool as frick
This explosion was tiny in comparison to even Little Boy/Fat Man
This obviously isn't nuclear, no flash of light.
few tonnes of nitrogen fertilizers iirc
All explosions of a certain size cause a mushroom cloud effect, it's how it works. It's not exclusive to nuclear bombs, and if you were that close to a nuke going off, there wouldn't be a visible boom and cloud moving towards you, it would be nothing but a flash and you're gone, vapor.
That's just a really big bang from flammable contents of a ship or warehouse.
>IT'S EVOLUTION, BABY
Kino explosion. The way it rips those rooves off is fricking awesome.
>Time.....Dr Freeman?.....
Putins gay
Really anon, really
You want to play this game
Dang Chudcels even get rekt by he-she’s lmaoooo
Oh and this is the drag queen in question from that article
How ironic, because I've been saying unironically Leftwing satanic pedo communism for the longest time
>All the kids who look up to me can suck my dick
So they ripped off "Natalie's Rap" from SNL? Not exactly sinister.
And this is that dangerous Far Right chud super spreader threat to ~~*democracy*~~ that tried to stop the beautiful and diverse Drag Queen Story Hour
So glad the feds are getting these bigoted fascists off our streets. Can't wait for the chud gulags
Humans would survive in some form, but the modern globally connected world would collapse. Everywhere would be little communities fighting for themselves against others. And many populations dying far earlier due to cancer/disease the doctors/advanced medicines becoming scarce.
>Humans would survive in some form, but the modern globally connected world would collapse. Everywhere would be little communities fighting for themselves against others.
That sounds fantastic. What's the downside?
Less free time to shitpost.
>Look at me, I'm like le epic nihilist !!
Frick off, you'd be shitting your pants and crying like everyone else if this shit happened
How is that nihilistic you Black personhomosexual
Destruction of cities is good for humanity
>What's the downside?
You're apart of the billions that starve to death
While I agree with you mostly your pick is a little dishonest. While still far bigger than hiroshima most modern strategic nukes are no where near the yield of castle bravo and certainly not tsar bomba. We're talking hundreds of kt to maybe a couple mt at most. Still plenty to frick up a city though.
nuclear weapons used in a war will be 300-800 kt in most cases. the 25 and 50 mt bomb tests showed us how useless they are as weapons, most of the energy goes out into space and the logistics of producing, transporting, and delivering them to the target makes them impractical. More numerous but smaller warheads means you can hit more targets with a lower chance of interception or misses.
Its not the 60s anymore, now ICBMs carry multiple hypersonic warheads. In an actual war we'll all be dust. Cities won't just get hit once, they will be bombarded with multiple nukes.
>even if launched simultaneously could not seriously damage human population
is this what happens to your brain when you never leave the house and never touch a woman?
jfc this place gets dumber every day
not an argument
dont we have some kind of anti-air but against nuclear bombs? like, just make that shit put it in all major cities and nuclear silos and all that and nukes are not a problem
anti air takes the bomber
missiles? we got that civered too but i dunno the hijinks and if they actually are in population centers already
then why dont we use nukes?
everybody will shid and piss their pants about muh morals
remember the calamity assads (alledged) gas strike caused?
we do
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_Agency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome
Yeah, it's disappointing how little investment there is in defense
Not a single modern city can be destroyed by nukes and concrete walls almost fully protect from any radiation. Hiroshima was full of paper building that caught on fire and burned down, Similar to NA suburbs after a hurricane and forest fires. And casualties were due to the fact that people were going to work and air raid sirens were not turned on, as military thought it was a scout plane.
Any carpet bombing is times worse than nuclear strikes.
But there even worse things than both of them - communism
Thats exactly why Japan surrendered, nuclear bombings were nothing, more people died in Tokyo without any nukes, it didnt concerned the emperor, but what did is red army slowly moving to Japan, and he knew that human and cultural casualties from that would be catastrophic and only way to save people from that was the United States of America.
>concrete walls almost fully protect from any radiation.
Even a thin concrete wall can half the gamma radiation, few walls or few meters of concrete can almost fully stop any gamma radiation.
Walls cant stop long term radiation poisoning to alpha and beta decay particles covering every surface, infesting the ground and water supply or falling from the sky when it rains
But the water you drink is irradiated, the air you breathe in is irradiated.
You should see what happened to Hiroshima first rescuers, they shat blood until they died.
I'd rather get killed by the blast.
Just dont drink from the puddles.
just don't breath air either right?
If the groundwater is contaminated, the entire water supply is irradiated in that area
the gamma gets the ones who see the blast or within a few hundred/thousand metres depending on yield. The real long term radiation poisoning comes from fallout, the vaporised material that falls back to earth onto people and which they breath in. This wont be as important with the smaller cities which will be targetted with air bursts, but military targets, old cities with large infrastructure will be hit with low height blasts for maximum building damage (not to mention the bombs that miss/mis time due to interference or incompetence. Fallout, combined with large firestorms in cities will spread that shit everywhere. Global exchanges will make it inescapable and it will enter every food chain and most fresh water supplies.
This, even if you don't get killed by the cloud you'll die of cancer at best, and God forbid you try to have kids, you'd be in for a wild ride.
And glass windows? Because unless you live in a cellar I'd imagine your structure is only as safe as its weakest point.
>But there even worse things than both of them - communism
Let me roll my eyes a little harder.
I don't discount the fact that soviet invasion probably pushed them to the decision but I hate how people now try to act like the immediate flattening of two cities had no bearing in Japan's decision to surrender
soviet invasion made all the difference for japan, if the nukes didnt drop, they just wouldve surrendered a week or two later.
The whole concept of "if we used every nuclear bomb we'd tender the earth uninhabitable" came from the 60's, where the worldwide nuclear arsenal was much larger than it is currently. As far as we know with current numbers this is no longer likely, but it also depends on where they're set off. For example, if every country on earth decided to detonate every nuke they have on the north pole for some reason, the effects on the environment could be absolutely disastrous and might end society as we know it.
For your typical "major population centers" nuclear scenario, the bigger problem would actually be the EMP effect from the nukes. The damage to the electrical grids would be astonishing.
In the 60s we had enough nuclear bombs to Hiroshima all land on the planet a dozen times over. In the 80s we had enough to Hiroshim all land on the planet 800 times over. Since disarmament we’ve dropped that to 600 times.
>the bigger problem would actually be the EMP effect from the nukes
How the frick does only one post in this entire thread mention this
Let’s be real, frickers. None of us have any clue what kind of actual shit the big players have saved back for an absolute shtf scenario.
they got gundam
would enthusiastically pay tax if my gov started building mechas
wrong a nuclear war would wipe out all of humanity except the ones lucky enough to have bunkers
Ah yes, survive in your bunker, and then get to visit the irradiated wasteland until your supplies run out and you die like the rest, what a marvelous perspective!
>be me
>be in high school
>be in physics class
>teacher is talking about nuclear bombs
>i raise my hand
>teacher calls on me
>i ask "if we drop a nuclear bomb on a city, would it turn the whole city into a diamond?"
>teacher looks at me for a few seconds
>says "no, that's not how nuclear bombs work"
>i say "well maybe we should drop one and find out"
>class erupts in laughter
>teacher gives me a detention
You sound like a teenager version of Carlos.
Lol why the frick would you get detention for such mild bants, guy sounds like a huge gay who probably had it out for you from previous bants. If I was a teacher I'd participate in bants, students would probably be more engaged that way.
The problem with your statement is that hydrogen bombs arent just frickhuge bombs. They are enormous bombs.
Remember the explosion in Beirut a year ago? The estimates ranges from 0.6 to 1.1 kiloton of tnt.
The nuke that was dropped on Hiroshima? About 15 kilotons of tnt.
Hydrogen bombs on the smaller end. 1000 kilotons of tnt.
Castle Bravo (largest US detonation) 15 000 kilotons of tnt.
RDS-22 Tsar Bomba (largest soviet detonation) upwards of 50 000 kilotons of tnt.
And we there are definitely nukes that can do more than even that.
If everyone actually went ape shit and started launching all the fricking nukes in the world then they could cover every square mile if they wanted to. Of course they probably won't and pockets of people will be left, but it'll literally be like fallout (without the overdramatic radiation bullshit). Back to square one for humanity.
>If everyone actually went ape shit and started launching all the fricking nukes in the world then they could cover every square mile if they wanted to
not even close
Depends where it falls, it was theorised that one super nuke dropped on the Amazon rainforest would be enough to burn all of it.
Wiping out humanity isn't about burning every each of ground anyways, it's about making earth inhabiteable.
Even if bunker gays survive, at best they'll prolong the life expectancy of the species by a few decades.
Inch
i think its safe to say they could turn every population centre with 50k or more people into a crater. More than enough to have effects similar to medium volcanic eruptions, which definitely have short term effects on global weather
Its hard to estimate surface area covered by a nuke, but there is probably enough of a functioning arsenal left to kill every human in western europe with a fireball/airburst
if you disrupt enough large human centers such as cities and destabilize governments and their institutions you don't need nukes to bring the end of the world as we know it
desperate and scared people will destroy whatever remains
Remember when they had nuclear explosions that you could watch from the Vegas strip?
92 above ground tests before they moved them underground. Sometimes 3 a month underground tests afterwards until the moratorium on Nuclear testing in 1992.( At the Nevada Atomic Testing Site - Now rebranded as the "Nevada National Security Site")
holy shit look at the ass on the left one
because a nuclear war would kneecap the global economy
basically imagine every country in the world reverting to africa-tier. it's not that there wouldn't be people anymore, they would just be poor, dirty and violent.
Try Dunning-Kruger, sounds like it would be in your wheelhouse.
This looks like an oil refinery getting blown up.
In the case of a thermonuclear attack, say 10 megatons, your pic would look like this.
So a 200m blast radius
That’s just the radius of ground zero.
wow it's going to burn two suburban areas.
Nukes damage more than ground zero.
Castle bravos fireball measured 4.5 miles in diameter. Blast radius who frick knows but probably 15-20 miles if you're not burned to a crisp first.
Distances not your strong suit huh?
Truth.
The overhyping nukes got from 1950's propaganda campaigns never went away. If anything the fear factor has just been multiplied by video games, tv and movies.
In reality, nukes are a kind of non-threat now. They definitely do huge devastation, but not in terms of ending ALL life on earth. That's even IF they get through the missile defense systems that make a genuine nuclear exchange impossible.
We're still living in the Cold War, and it will only change once we see a nuke actually lift off, and will end abruptly the moment the missile's burnt remains fall to the sky and governments realize that nukes aren't the 'end' of warfare.
A nuclear warhead doesn't have to fall directly on you head to kill you, and it doesn't have to kill you to completely frick up your life.
>https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2022/03/what-the-science-says-could-humans-survive-a-nuclear-war-between-nato-and-russia/
>One study published two years ago looked at the likely impacts of a nuclear exchange of about 100 Hiroshima-sized detonations (15 kt yield each) on the most-populated urban areas of India and Pakistan.
>Direct human deaths in this “limited” nuclear war scenario are not quantified in the study, but would presumably number in the tens to hundreds of millions. The planetary impacts are also severe: as the soot reaches the stratosphere it circulates globally, blocking incoming solar radiation and dropping the Earth’s surface temperature by 1.8C in the first five years.
>Food exports collapse as stocks are depleted within a single year, and by year four a total of 1.3 billion people face a loss of about a fifth of their current food supply. The researchers conclude that “a regional conflict using <1 percent of the worldwide nuclear arsenal could have adverse consequences for global food security unmatched in modern history.”
>If global nuclear famine could result from just 100 nuclear detonations, what might be the result of a fuller exchange of the several thousand warheads held in current inventories by the US and Russia?
>One 2008 study looked at a Russia-US nuclear war scenario, where Russia would target 2,200 weapons on Western countries and the US would target 1,100 weapons each on China and Russia. In total, therefore, 4,400 warheads detonate, equivalent to roughly half the current inventories held each by Russia and the US.
>This full-scale nuclear war was estimated to cause 770 million direct deaths and generate 180 Tg of soot from burning cities and forests. In the US, about half the population would be within 5km of a ground zero, and a fifth of the country’s citizens would be killed outright.
>A massive drop in temperature follows, with the weather staying below freezing throughout the subsequent Northern Hemisphere summer. In Iowa, for example, the model shows temperatures staying below 0°C for 730 days straight. There is no growing season. This is a true nuclear winter.
>Temperatures still drop below freezing in summer for several years thereafter, and global precipitation falls by half by years three and four. It takes over a decade for anything like climatic normality to return to the planet.
>By this time, most of Earth’s human population will be long dead. The world’s food production would crash by more than 90 percent, causing global famine that would kill billions by starvation. In most countries less than a quarter of the population survives by the end of year two in this scenario. Global fish stocks are decimated and the ozone layer collapses.
>averaged over the subsequent five years, China sees a reduction in food calories of 97.2 percent, France by 97.5 percent, Russia by 99.7 percent, the UK by 99.5 percent and the US by 98.9 percent. In all these countries, virtually everyone who survived the initial blasts would subsequently starve.
>Even the 150 Tg soot nuclear war scenario is orders of magnitude less than the amount of smoke and other particulates put into the atmosphere by the asteroid that hit the Earth at the end of the Cretaceous, 65 million years ago, killing the dinosaurs and about two-thirds of species alive at the time.
>This implies that some humans would survive, eventually to repopulate the planet, and that a species-level extinction of homosexual sapiens is unlikely even after a full-scale nuclear war. But the vast majority of the human population would suffer extremely unpleasant deaths from burns, radiation and starvation, and human civilization would likely collapse entirely. Survivors would eke out a living on a devastated, barren planet.
>It was this shared understanding of the consequences of nuclear Armageddon that led to the 1985 statement by then US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” This statement was reaffirmed by Presidents Biden and Putin as recently as January 2022. Even as war rages in Ukraine it remains as true now as it was then.
>With children’s hospitals bombed and refugees shelled as they flee, emotions run high. But cool heads must ultimately prevail, so that we can collectively step back from the brink of Russia-NATO confrontation before it is too late. The price of nuclear escalation is planetary suicide, with no winners at all. That won’t save lives in Ukraine — it will simply take the death toll of the current war from the thousands to the billions.
Nuclear winter theory has been proven to be false. Its not 1970 anymore.
>source: dude just trust me
>source: dude just trust youtube
He is literal expert on the subject. Remember to dilate yourself troony
If Putin says he will drop nukes they can't be that bad
The fact that globohomosexual hates nukes must mean they are in fact good
No nukes. It's all fake they make up to scare each other.
we're reaching contrarian shitposting levels not thought possible
Hey Black person.
Literal forest fires cause major reduction of temperatures that last weeks.
You can post a video of something coping for 24hrs that it won't change that fact.
a nearby forest fire in the summer blocked out the sun and turned what was supposed to be a 90+ degree week into a 65 degree one, I'd believe it.
thats just it, any amount of particles settle down within a week or two and the "winter" is over.
a scenario where the sun hides for years and destroys harvests around the world is just ridiculous
They didn't settle down for a while though, I just got lucky that the wind blew them somewhere else basically. So I don't know about 10 years but I could see it being a long time anyway. There was a volcano explosion in the late 1800s I think, in the Pacific, and it turned the sky pinkish/reddish in England for months to a year IIRC
the 1815 volcanic explosion in indonesia released dozens of cubic MILES of rock and ash into the atmosphere. thousands of nukes couldnt to this
and the climate anomaly was mostly localized to north america and europe because of wind patterns, other areas in the world didnt even notice it.
Oh okay, that makes sense
nevertheless I wouldn't want to get bombed, I'm sure it would suck
I also hope we never go through a nuclear war
but I'm also confident that people would be able to rebuild and bounce back after a few generations, even if hundreds of millions die
You don't have to hope: it's impossible because there's no nukes. You don't have to live in fear.
It's fake.
Fake in what ways? Are you able to elaborate or is this just bait? im open to educating myself if you arent totally moronic which i suspect you are
The videos of nukes are fake made on models. Same thing happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as Tokyo and Dresden.
"made on models" these videos are from before cgi. can you actually link sources or are you just doing the minimum to piss ppl off? this will be my last (you) if the next reply isnt satisfactory
Source? No source. You think USA government would allow proof of that to be on the internet?
at least make up some plausible opinions for your shitposts, this is embarassing
Embarrassing for you.
yeah people will for sure still be around, if it ever happens I would hope I will be one of them so I can, in the mad max future, ensure that anyone trying to resurrect technology past the year 2000 is quickly enslaved and put to work on the farm before such thoughts spiral out of control
this is what i don't think a lot of the midwits posting in here understand: a nuke going off on the opposite side of the world is not an isolated event. in our current world today, this would trigger a massive economic downturn that would dwarf the great depression. a potentially civilization-ending event. and you, mr. larper, most likely won't survive.
yeah nukes are not that powerful actually (except locally, where they are mind-numbing powerful), so people made up a myth that it would cause a nuclear winter and famins, but it was just baseless bullshit to scare people into being consoomers and to cut their dick off I think
broo have you guys not watched threads???
Serious studies have been conducted on nukes, Cinemaphile gays are full of shit.
If nukes were truly safe they'd be used way more as conventional warfare. The us dropped napalm all over Vietnam, used uranium enriched bullets in Irak, but Nukes are too bad?
Get out of here? If a comically evil country like the US doesn't use nukes, there's a reason
Get out of here, *
The reason is bad PR.
Reasons are mainly political. A nuke would elevate the country from just evil to comically evil that no one wants to deal with.
And people say summer Cinemaphile isn’t real
Aren't nukes extremely dangerous? What's stopping china from throwing a nuke at our nuke stockpile? That will literally detonate 100 nukes and flatten us in seconds.
Holy frick you're right, we should really tell Biden to move the us nuclear stockpile from the White House backyard, what if China has the same idea you just got?
That's not how nukes work.
Welcome to the real world of fake psychological operations run by thousands of intelligence agencies & oil companies fighting with each other across the planet.
>be me
>have to pack 500 pounds of C4 explosives around 1 pound of plutonium or uranium
>this somehow makes it a "nuclear bomb", not "a bland bomb with spice"
...lots of "hot rock make water steam" science is problematic at best, anon.
>have no access to neutron trigger
>according to science, just smack with hammer as fast as you can as long as you can and it will eventually cascade and explode said Bill Nye
>also says you can put it in worlds largest hydraulic press pushing several thousand gravities and it should explode too
>has never been recorded to have happened
so the fix...
>take hot rock put on pedestal
>put pedestal in round room
>put mirrors of lithium (x) around it
>1 neutron leaves uranium, bounces off lithium (x) mirror which releases extra neutron from L(X) to go back to rock for double making rock hotter
>hot rock gets hotter to make faster steam
>never "nuclears" but will explode itself into chunks
it's almost impossible to accidentally trigger the reaction necessary for a nuclear explosion
“It’s ok guys only 2.7 billion people would die, not 8 billion”
the largest nukes have 200mi blast radii
>could not seriously damage human population
>less than one third of humanity would perish
You're so stupid I can't even find simple enough words you'd understand to explain to you how fricking dumb you are. How do you work a keyboard? Does mommy type for you?
Land area of Earf is 150 million square km. Every nuke detonated would not make a dent even on humanity which survived the Toba catastrophe which reduced population to a few thousand. Every post apoc fiction is laughably wrong.
>Every nuke detonated would not make a dent even on humanity which survived the Toba catastrophe which reduced population to a few thousand.
If you talk about humanity like grass that will grow back when you cut it then yeah nothing that happens to individual humans matters. Unfortunately we are all individual humans and if 97% of us all killed that might affect our lives even if "humanity" survives.
Except people aren't perfectly evenly spready across all of the earth's land mass and huge amounts of it are uninhabited. One Tsar bomb could literally vaporize NYC, level surrounding cities and cause damage as far as NJ and Connecticut. There are over 4k active nukes, granted not all that powerful, but still if all detonated tactically, could easily kill enough people and destroy all the resources and infrastructure needed for the world to survive. The only people likely to survive for any decent amount of time are rural independent civilizations in developing countries.
wrong. nukes are not deployed to kill the most people, but to hit the enemy's military capabilities, which are concentrated in specific areas
theres plenty of places in north america that wouldnt even see or feel the impact of a global nuclear war. if you dont live near a silo or vital population hub then you'll be fine, your water, electricity and food supplies will be fine.
nukes would kill hundreds of millions, but humanity would survive and rebuild.
India superpower by 2077!
Yeah, movies in general tend to cater to the moronic so it is picking l puzzling they've never addressed it
And what happens when such a nuclear war wipes out supply lines of agriculture and commercial products? You think because your particular city didn't get vaporized that it's not going to be affected? Never mind spreading fallout onto the surrounding areas, the water supply, animals, etc.
How fast do you think your city would descend into chaos if it had no food or supplies entering it anymore? No national or global business?
Just as I was getting stuck on my nuclear physics thesis, this Cinemaphile thread appears to educate me, at least, a gift from the lord it seems!
>people are actually trying to normalize nukes dropping to be contrarian
Holy frick it's really over isn't it
Even if some humans survive from a major nuclear war, they'll face famine, extreme violence, radiation poisoning, infant malformations, cancer, and most likely extinction.
I'd rather die with the blast.
It's like a zombie apocalypse anyways, all of the c**ts here saying they'd survive would die in the first hours.
It isn't the bombs, it's the aftermath. There are approximately 14,000 known nuclear warheads on the planet. In the event of an all out war, if even half those strike targets and detonate the world will be dealing with millions of burned and rotting corpses along with untold thousands of tons of decaying debris contaminating and spreading disease into land and water supplies, as well as hundreds of miles of unchecked fires, with not enough people readily available to clean up or extinguish it. You're fricking stupid.
We should just live in giant subs so no one knows where anyone is and can't bomb them
Aren't there LEDs that looks like sunlight?
Wouldn't the bread get stale?
Lmao what the frick is this thread?
>umm ackshually nukes don't even do much damage because i say so
We've seen the damage of nukes ourselves we literally know exactly the damage they do.
What's the next amazing thread topic, fire doesn't actually burn anything?
It's the new pro-Russian /misc/ psyops
>Um yeah daddy putin is gonna drop nukes because he's getting embarrassed, but it'll be okay!
>pro-Russian /misc/ psyops
You absolute moronic fricking Black person there is no pro any country when it comes to actual nuclear war because every single person in this thread right now would be dead within 2-5 years of the first nuke hitting
There are a lot of uneducated and insanely stupid people in this thread.
>Defense
currently it seems that Russia has too many nukes deployed in various places on extremely fast missles, so it would be impossible to stop most of them if launched.
They are hypersonic ICBMs which can up to 15,000 mph (24,140 kph) or 4 miles/6.4 km per second.
We could do the same to them, but we wouldn't be able to stop it.
>if all/a lot explode, would it destroy humanity?
Most likely. Japan had generations of cancer after the explosions, there were high rates of cancer for kids who weren't born when it even happened. Bombs are way stronger now, and for those not killed in the explosion, they'd probably die from irradiated air, water, and food, if you could find food that wasn't wiped out.
95% of the world population would be dead in 1-5 years, guaranteed
I forgot to mention, we tested one in the air, and it pulled in the earth's magnetic field so much that it gave hawaii an aurora borealis
the magnetic fields protects us from cosmic radiation, so if we fricked that up enough life on earth as we know it would be doomed.
are you moronic? this was a temporary effect that didnt even last a full night. the amount of nukes dropped doesnt matter. there is no way humans can do enough damage to permanently destroy the earths magnetic field
>aurora borealis
At that time of the year? At that latitude? Circumscribed entirely to Hawaii?
>Bombs are way stronger now
since the 70s, nukes have been engineered to be precise and easily deployable, they barely go abote the 1MT range now because thats more than enough to wipe out any military installation
every bomb larger than this was simply a show of force with no practical military application, they are too heavy and vulnerable to deploy via rocket or bomber and serve no purpose.
>95% of the world population would be dead in 1-5 years, guaranteed
that still leaves 400 million people alive to rebuild. it will be tough for a few generations but humans are very tenacious and resourceful in times of crisis
There was some guy out there that was floating around the idea that we are currently entering a very dangerous age. That most of the people who lived through seeing nuclear testing happen on TV are boomers/close to death, and that there is now a collective consciousness in society that has never seen the true awesome (in the original sense of the word) power of nuclear weapons, and as such we are seeing more and more mental midgets like OP who don't respect their power. And over time this will creep up the chance of a slip-up happening.
cia meddling in the baltics will frick up europe bad
The
>nukes are no big deal
reprogramming by the media and government has been going on for over a decade
Nope. No nukes. No covid. You are a fricking shill.
Fake.
NATO allied countries are playing a dangerous game by supplying armaments/support to Ukraine.
If that is enough to sway the war and allow Ukraine win then you have a situation where Russia's hand might be forced to escalate against NATO directly. Losing Ukraine completely and letting NATO absorb it is not an option for Russia.
And if it doesn't affect the outcome of the war then that's billions of dollars wasted just to drag the war out and you end up with a lot of dead Ukrainians that wouldn't be dead if Ukraine just surrendered.
With China readying to pounce on Taiwan, I don't think we've been this close to WWIII since the height of the Cold War.
What's worse, EU expansion into Baltics was solely to increase NATO presence; it's clear that none of those countries + Poland aren't up to par when it comes to EU standards and CIA is activelly riling them up; every fricking one of them has a NATO stooge for president. Latest Kaliningrad developments are ludicrous.
With BoJo being Blair 0.5, I'm surprised that Macron is the only one trying to keep Europe alive.
what is US supposed to do just let russia walk back to 1945 borders? they invaded a country with no casus belli which is a huge no no. if us showed weakness all of europe would be in danger
It's a difficult situation and I think the only viable answer would have been some agreement to let Russia hold Eastern Ukraine as a DMZ and use those tensions to kick the can of Ukraine ever entering NATO down the road until well after Putin is dead and out.
America will probably try to have one part of the ukraine be independent. The ukraine is a israeli dictatorship technocracy and has no place in eu.
You are a shill. No nukes.
giving in to these demands would only embolden putins around the world to make the same moves.
anything else than enforcing status quo means that war is now a viable means to reach goals in foreign policy again
Honestly, couldn't we take Russia? I think most people would be for it at this point, and it'll show China not to get too uppity
from a military perspective, absolutely
but the casualties would be insane, even assuming nukes dont get used for some reason
its all a question of cost, many people dont have the stomach for hundreds of thousands of dead anymore for good reason
>Modern western men in an all out war
I give you 3 days
>Ukraine win then you have a situation where Russia's hand might be forced to escalate against NATO directly
They can't beat ukraine so somehow taking on all of NATO directly is a better idea?
I wouldn't put it past the dumb vatBlack folk tbh.
It's funny because this type of thing of the current generation having no idea of the shitstorm they would unleash by doing something reminds me a lot of the 2nd book of the Three Body Problem series.
Sounds like the solution is to start doing nuclear tests again. Let's do Castle Bravo in 8k.
Impossible. There's no nukes.
how may nukes have been dropped ever?
>INB4 schizos pointing out how many nukes have been dropped and we are still here
none of these were on populated places, if that had been the case and they werent so spread out the firestorms and resulting radioactive soot clouds would be real and would be deadly
You should watch T2. Special effects guru Stan Winston and his crew studied hours of nuclear test footage in order to make Sarah Connor's "nuclear nightmare" scene look as realistic as possible. A miniature Los Angeles was made to simulate the scene. Some of the materials used in the miniature that mimicked all the destroyed masonry were Matzos crackers and Shredded Wheat. After each take, it would take on average two days to set the model up to shoot again. In late 1991, members of several US federal nuclear testing labs unofficially declared it "the most accurate depiction of a nuclear blast ever created for a fictional motion picture." The special effects team members have stated several times that no scene they've worked on since has received an equivalent amount of praise or emotional feedback from viewers.
The nuclear nightmare scene looks dumb as frick now. Except her body being blown to bits that looks cool but doesn’t make sense.
Global nuclear war would basically destroy supply chains, that's the real killer.
>less than one third of humanity would perish
But one third of the human population is serious damage...
Flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, and now anti-nukers.
Wonder what else that has existed for decades is going to suddenly become fake.
Maybe I haven't even been drinking water this entire time and it's actually also a psyop to think humans need sustenance.
Birds aren't real.
>he drinks water
Enjoy your last 2 weeks
don't forget "space is fake", although that might be considered a subcategory of flat earthers
it's just desperate attention-seeking. the bad part is that there's plenty of low IQ types who think OP isn't just baiting.
something something those who get their laughs by pretending to be idiots...
Incel moment.
>If I make a list of 3 things where 2 are extremely unreasonable and one is just a little bit controversial I can pretend that you're all equally insane
Still not taking the vaccine, still not dead
>i'm not as crazy as those other guys!
The sweet smell of copium.
have a nice day, fricking shill.
if you won't take the vax, at least take your schizo meds
I take vaccines only if they actually prevent the spread of diseases 100%.
Just like almost every other vaccine did until 2020 when we changed the definition of vaccines
Nice history revisionism. Just like condoms have always been 100% effective and soap kills 100% of germs.
Take your meds schizo.
well if the covid shot prevented the chance of catching and spreading it by anywhere close to the effectiveness of a condom I would also take it
taking a vaccine that doesn't stop me from catching it AT ALL and doesn't stop me from spreading it AT ALL for a disease that has a smaller chance of killing me than my car does every single day is not something I would do
>Just like condoms have always been 100% effective and soap kills 100% of germs.
nice headcanon you concocted. never has this been claimed anywhere. you have the hallmarks of an actual schizo
Yeah no shit moron, that's the point. Just like vaccines have never been claimed to magically 100% eradicate whatever virus/disease. None of this shit has ever been claimed, only a moron would say so.
but every other vaccine except flu does eradicate viruses and diseases by destroying transmission creating immune people
the covid vaxx does not
>seat belts are only 99.9% effective, some unlucky sobs get strangled by them in an accident
>better not wear them at all because I'm a moron
see
not to mention both seatbelts and condoms are something I can at any point in my life decide to stop using and not something permanently in my body
post your proof of vaccination otherwise I will know you're just a larper
>my bullshit is totally not like that other bullshit! I'm smart!
imagine getting this worked up but i bet you dont say the same over Black person crime satistics or rabbi dick eaters
shut the frick up shmuley
is this is a deep level shill thread laying the groundwork for the oppenheimer movie? some sort of arg like the dark knight leadup? nolan does it again...
Yes, everyone you don't like is a bot, why don't you go back to 2016 and call everyone a Russian bot while you're at it?
>nukes could not seriously damage human population
>Only a third of the human population would die
That's 2.5 billion people killed anon.
If nukes are so bad, how come japan still exists and is based?
Check mate, if putin drops nukes that just means we'll start drawing e-girl domestically and won't have to worry about outsourcing our e-girl making capabilities
There are no nukes. Japan just got attacked a lot by USA airforce.
cynicism does not equal intelligence
I hope you perish in the blasts, your stupidity and arrogance will be an immediate danger to anyone you meet afterwards should you live.
>science says nukes will destory the world
Is this the same science that says man can become women by cutting their dicks off?
so Russian bot farms are feeding post-qanons with this bullshit now?
as someone who was alive during th cold war, its sad to see that young people today dont fear nukes. you will never understand the fear in that time. i hope a nuke hits LA or something so that you zoomers can understand it
@169895409
go waste your time elsewhere buddy, it's over
Thank you for conceding the point instead of posting more science fiction
>conceding the point
more like consneeding
This is the dumbest /misc/ has ever gotten
show us some math then
@169895514
thanks for the (You), give me one more before the thread 404s?
It isn’t near bump limit. Did you really call the jannies because you got btfo?
Nukes aren't real.
>For almost 80 years every single country on Earth, even those who are mortal enemies, have agreed to set aside their differences and perpetuate the myth that nukes exist to the public, and no one has ever broken this agreement and told the truth in all this time
I'd just love to read your explanation for this
>nukes aren't real
How many Ls can /misc/ take?
i like that all the hysterical shrieking about global-warming/global-cooling/climate-change is having the side effect of convincing people making small artificial stars on earth isn't dangerous.
>only place with an iron dome is israel
Curious...
even isreals iron dome couldnt do shit against an icbm
>~~*Oppenheimer*~~
nuff said
So where Horishima and Nakasaki detonated above ground or did they actually impact?
all nukes are detonated a few hundred feet above ground for maximum damage
Would a ground impact not leave a long lasting radioactive effect since less of the material is in the airstream?
radiation is only a side effect of nukes and military planning doesnt really care about it. its all about the fast, precise and huge damage they can do.
the point is just to destroy enemy forces at this very moment, not radiating the ground for decades when your own troops will eventually have to move through
i dont get how you can test nukes. aren't they, like, super bad for the environment?
Not if the radiation is spread out and diluted in the air. Otherwise you just bomb sandbanks
Yeah, bikini atoll is still uninhabitable
I know, right?
A lot of small towns in Utah were hit pretty hard by fallout from the test site. Cancer killed a lot of people in some of those communities over the years.
We should raise awareness for cancer
obesity kills more people in a month than nuclear testing or accidents ever will
Obesity is a choice, government funded nuclear fallout isn't.
obesity isnt a choice when the cheapest and most available food around you is also the one that makes you sick and obese.
a government that doesnt legislate for health standards in food is endorsing obesity
>obesity isnt a choice when the cheapest and most available food around you is also the one that makes you sick and obese.
eat frozen vegetables
Its a choice, fatass.
Fitness costs nothing anon.
Except YOUR SOUL
>The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon: 1312 pages
>The Decline and Fall of USA: 4 words
High Fructose Corn Syrup
This is literally what led to Hiroshima by the way, this line of thinking. Hirohito went "nah nukes aren't real and if they are they can't be THAT powerful", and then when they were he went "well okay but I bet that's all you've got"