How to survive a nuclear war? And how to re-establish basic technology and civilization after that?
>>693949
>How to survive a nuclear war?
I'd hunt hairless cats in a radiation suit. Then fight marauders under a bridge with some sweet dual machetes. Probably find my way to a town to get my portable electronics batteries recharged and get some water. I'd get out of there during a gunfight, some girl would follow me out of town as well. We'd visit a house that was owned by cannibals trying to eat us, but they'd fight with some marauders from the town that followed us and it would be a big battle and I'd get shot but survive. The girl would survive too. We'd find our way to the west coast and I'd die and she'd carry on my legacy. The great part would be that I was blind the whole time.
you dont
https://vimeo.com/18781528
>>693949
Unless you've got a bunker with an air scrubber and ten years worth of food, water and waste disposal, you're fucked. That old propaganda bullshit was just to give people false hope because the government didn't want people to quit their jobs and stop providing supplies for the troops. If we had a full-out nuclear war today, there would be about 2000 people in the US that would survive, half in private, multi-million dollar bunkers, half in government facilities which not a single person on this website, including any FBI, CIA or ATF agents will ever see the inside of. Most other countries would have even fewer survivors. You're better off not worrying about it, stress isn't good for your health anon.
>>694025
because all who survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki had bunkers with air scrubbers and ten years worth of.... Yeah, no.
>>694036
Just because they didn't die immediately, doesn't mean they survived anon. Most had severe injuries, radiation poisoning, and sterility. Those that weren't left sterile... well, let's just say they should have been.
>>694036
no but hundreds of thousands died, all they left were shadows on the pavement
those who did survive were incredibly lucky as they were in shade or wearing white clothing and then the US Army Engineers Corp spent a decade rebuilding both cities
>>694025
>>694025
Not actually realistic really. Yes you'd need some kind of bunker, but 'bunker' doesn't have to mean a kilometer deep facility with several lead doors and expensive 10 stage air filtration.
A small sized room a few feet underground with mild shielding would protect you (assuming you're not in a strike zone). Clean air supply is only an issue in the first few days after a nuclear detonation, as the radioactive fallout 'dust particulates' and still floating around the air up to no good. This can be solved by literally sealing yourself in and having your own oxygen supply and regulator. OR have some sort of air scrubbing system which is actually incredibly cheap and easy to rig up yourself....As for whether you'd survive depends entirely on where and how much people have decided to use nuclear weapons. I think if both US and RU went all out, there would be no option for long term survival of anybody. Unless the government has already constructed some massive underground facility to prepare for such and event, and is stocked with geothermal energy, grow-rooms, the whole she-bang.
Probably not an easy project to undertake, but it's totally feasible to anyone with a half decent job and some intelligence.
>>694064
That's what I meant, though. Not just one nuclear strike in a targeted region, but full-on War Games scenario where one strike causes immediate retaliation on all fronts. The fallout from hundreds of strikes, subsequent failing of infrastructure which results in no governmental assistance. You'd need a ten year reserve just to survive the global fallout, and still not be able to grow food anywhere for fifty years. We'd all be screwed.
>>694036
These two examples are not indicative of the catastrophic climatological changes that would follow from full scale thermonuclear war. Instead of just small, packetized, radiation laced areas you have instead carpet bombed the entirety of North America, releasing more radiation by a factor of thousands to millions what we've released thus far with testing. Plus, you have the added danger of things like neutron bombs over appropriate targets, which don't give two shits how far down you're buried because neutron flux don't give a fuck. Everything would be destroyed, any surviving pockets of civilization would have to deep, deep, underground and entirely self sustained for perhaps 100 years or more before surface ventures would become half-feasible. There's no comparison. Full scale nuclear war isn't tossed about as the end of the world for no reason. It would literally sterilize the entire planet for just about everything larger than a rat.
>>694025
>implying there wouldn't be areas which wouldn't suffer from a nuclear strike in case of a nuclear war
>>694064
Actually a sensible post.
It is strange to think that just a deep slit trench with a metre of soil above you is enough to cut down gamma radiation a lot, and block alpha and beta emitters completely.
Also the "rule of sevens" is also interesting too, the activity of the fallout drops off non-linearly with time. So the first two weeks are the most critical if you want to survive.
On some level though it is all a game of chance, lack of food and water will kill you quickly. So after a week in the improvised shelter you might need to quickly venture out to secure food/water you might have an slightly increased chance of cancer in 10 years, or you might be completely fine. It also puts "survival" into perspective, if you survive the nuclear exchange and die 30 years later from cancer I'd say you have "survived" the nuclear war, even if your lifespan was cut short dramatically.
>>694432
stockpile iodine stockpile gas mask filters, have a hazmat suit. the gamma radiation lasts milliseconds, everything else the suit will protect against.
have a geiger muller and leave any area where it gives you high readings. the long half-life radioactive elements will not be scattered over a large area unless it was a high-atmo dirty bomb. tactical nukes will have minimal fallout and very concentrated.
>>694599
>the gamma radiation lasts milliseconds
Wat
>>694599
>tactical nukes will have minimal fallout and very concentrated.
depends on if its a ground burst or an air burst.
if its a ground burst it increases the fallout significantly
You don't bro, it is the end. THE end for all mankind. That is how we're all going ri die .
Protips:
Most people won't die. Most won't even see a mushroom cloud. Nukes get pointed at other nuke launching/staging areas, and strategic resources. Nukes don't give a shit about most of suburbia.
The "Nuclear winter" scenario doesn't exist. It was brought about with bad science from scientists with a pre-existing bias.
Duck and cover does work, as most injuries will be from flying objects and broken glass pushed by the over pressure wave.
You survive nuclear war by having a community you live and interact with.
Learn to farm shit.
EMP's don't instantly fry all electronics, just anything with a 3+foot long cable, cord, or antenna. (i.e. the entire powergrid, have fun)
>>694040
>Those that weren't left sterile... well, let's just say they should have been.
That isn't how it works though. Only fetuses exposed to the radiation mutate. Mutations are not passed from parent to a new fetus later on when there's no high radiation present.
>>693966
Mad Max is one of my favourite movies.
>>693949
Duck and cover. If you can't do that then seek a bunker or fallout shelter.
>>694886
>Mutations are not passed from parent to a new fetus later on when there's no high radiation present.
>>694886
Mutations in your germ cells (which are in you) will be passed to your offspring. That's the central dogma of biological variability/diversity, I.e. genetics, evolution and all that shit
Minimal mutation occurs naturally without mutagens. Mutation is random so sometimes it makes no difference and sometimes it's good, bad or unviable.
Radiation fucks with DNA causing mutations when the cell repairs the damage, enough of it will kill some particularly vulnerable cells e.g. hematopoietic stem cells, which will eventually kill you if it gets all of them.
There is so much ignorance in this thread regarding nuclear target selection, weapon and radiation effects, and post-nuclear exchange societal changes.....
Here, read this article by a former nuclear planner who decided to weigh in on some dweebs argument:
>http://www.giantbomb.com/fallout-3/3030-20504/forums/nuclear-warfare-101-wall-of-text-alert-2999/
You're welcome.
>>694043
This is actually a common misconception. The "nothing but shadows left" myth is just that: a myth.
Those caught within the immediate fireblast radius certainly would be incinerated, but they would not leave a shadow "footprint" behind, or at least not longterm, because inside the fireball zone everything is fucking destroyed. Outside of the fireball, the intense burst of heat and radiation causes the footprint phenomenon. You see that demonstrated here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_QKv4tea6I
Before the kinetic blast wave reaches the target, it is hit with an intense heat wave which burns away surface layers. Surfaces (such as the ground in a shadow) which are covered by something (such as a person) are somewhat protected from the radiation burst and resist the heat bleaching which occurs.
The human body which shields the shadow is not incinerated at this radius. It is certainly burned to the point of near-instant death, but the vast majority of the body's mass remains in place.
Once the kinetic wave hits the body it is thrown from its initial point somewhere else, leaving behind the unbleached "footprint" on the pavement.
>>693966
The road is my favourite book.
>>694025
Kek. Maybe if you live in a big city, in a wide open plain.
Any mountain area wont be affected at all, unless there is a specific wind current that carries specific air masses over that mountain range.
Here in the Alps, nothing would ever happen.
Maybe no more internet and no more gas eventually, but survival is guaranteed.
>>694077
Maybe not traditional foods but insects, fungi, algae, and bacteria could be more hardy and viable.
Yeast is a pretty great food source.
>>693975
That movie is so fucking dark. It's up there with Requiem For A Dream in my list of amazing movies you never want to see again.
>>693966
Damn, now i want to watch book of eli again
>>695123
That wasnt mad mad retard it was waterworld
Live in a rural area.
Capital and Large cities will be affected, but if you live in a rural area or some mountains then you'll be fine.
Why would you want to re-establish civilisation anyway? living innawoods is pretty fun.
>>694633
sorry it lasts about a single millisecond or less my mistake
>>698562
he's talking about gamma radiation from decaying radionuclides
>>694805
This guy is right.
Although it has some weird aftereffects, nukes are basically just very large bombs. If you believe the doomsayers, a nuke basically just vaporizes a whole city, with no chance of survival, but that's not really true.
When a bomb goes off, there's an inner circle where your probability of dying is almost certain. I think we all agree that a hundred or a thousand or whatever miles away, the probability of being killed by that bomb is zero. In between is a huge grey area where you might die or might not. Those probabilities form concentric circles, with each outer ring being much safer and a much larger area than the next one inside.
So then the questions become "how close am I to the center?" "How will a bomb kill me?" and "How can I mitigate the effects of a bomb?"
Primary effects are direct results of the explosion: getting burned by the wave of heat or killed by the shockwave. Secondary effects include dying in house fires started by the bomb, or being killed by flying debris.
Most people don't live on top of missile ranges or other high-value targets. And the Russians don't have extra bombs to waste dropping warheads directly on elementary schools. So a typical person in a typical home, office, or school is in that huge grey area where death is possible but not certain. In that area, duck and cover is extremely damn useful.
So why is it mocked? Two reasons. The Soviet KGB threw immense amounts of resources into the "nukes are so deadly that there's no point bothering to prepare for them" meme in its enemies in the West, even as the Soviets threw even greater resources into civil defense measures at home. For obvious reasons. Anti-war types felt that preparedness was dangerous because believing a nuclear war was in any way survivable might tempt people to start one.
tl;dr Duck and cover really does work. In the few situations where it doesn't, it's because you're dead already and it didn't hurt.
/k/ is a better board for this question. Oppenheimer is a tripfriend who I don't always agree with but he's an expert in the field. Nuclear war wasn't super likely in the 80s, and while a nuclear strike against the west is much more likely now, a full-on nuclear war is probably not going to happen.
But I do like the thought experiment so here I am.
Lemme get this out of the way, because it's the most important point. The single best preparatory decision you can make against nuclear war is the decision to not live near likely nuclear targets.
Here's a nuclear principle: counterforce vs countervalue strategies. Counterforce means you target your weapons on your enemy's military targets: ICBM launch sites, strategic air and sub bases, and command and control centers. Plus conventional military targets. If you are Russia, you have enough warheads to do this, and thus can credibly threaten a nuclear first strike because you have a strategy to minimize the counterstrike.
Everyone apart from the US and Russia have very few warheads (~200), and only a limited capability to deliver them. So their list of targets they can go after is pretty short, and many probably have multiple weapons tasked to them. They can't eliminate an enemy's nuclear arsenal, so their only option is countervalue: hitting stuff the enemy values (mostly cities).
With countervalue, you can press a "nobody wins" button but that's it. With counterforce, the button has a chance of killing the other guy while you survive. That makes a big difference in how other nations deal with you.
My point being that Russia and the US have huge numbers of warheads, but comparatively few are targeted at civilian centers. And everyone else just doesn't have that many weapons. Either way, it means that most of a country will NOT be nuked even in a full-on exchange.
>>699351
that's not a problem unless it happens inside your body.
>>699858
Either way, you can ride out a nuclear war in your house if you're not near a target. If you do live near a target, move. Then you won't need a bunker. Just someplace where you can hold out while radiation levels drop, until you can get to a place of more permanent safety.
Odds are you won't be in your bunker when a bomb detonates, you'll be in your home, school, or office because you didn't get any warning. So even if you have a bunker, it probably won't help you.
A nuke has four main phases. Flash-- which will blinds and dazzles you. Then, a few seconds later, Blast. Direct effects are obvious, but if you're at a safe distance that survival is an option at all, you're more likely to be hurt or killed by indirect effects: shrapnel and broken glass flying around. Then a few seconds after that comes a wave of Heat. Depending on how close and exposed you are, this could give you burns or set fires that kill you indirectly. Finally, about 10-20 minutes after the bomb goes off, radioactive fallout rains down.
You probably won't have any warning. So while being temporarily blinded is awful, Flash's main job is to give you a warning that IT'S HAPPENING. That's when you duck and cover. That minimizes both the direct and indirect effects of Blast and Heat.
A few minutes later, count on ANOTHER bomb. If you have the presence of mind to get to somewhere safer in the building you're in, then great. You have 30 seconds to 5 minutes, because anywhere worth hitting once might be worth hitting twice. Odds are you'll still be stunned by what happened, so staying hunkered down might be your best bet if you survived one nuke in that spot.
Then you have 5 minutes to get to a fallout shelter. Scouting a few out near where you work and hang out is something to do NOW, when it's just a pain in the ass, vs when you need it, by which point it's impossible. 2ft of concrete or 3ft of soil will reduce gamma rays to 1/1000.
>>699869
>heat after shockwave
wtf man the fuck are you talking about the shockwave travels with the speed of sound the heat travels with speed of light.
>>699869
So now we get to the difference between a bomb shelter and a fallout shelter.
A bomb shelter protects you from Flash, Blast, Heat, and Fallout. Sweet. Except that unless you're in the military sitting on a strategic target, you probably don't live and work inside a bomb shelter. And if you are, then the nukes are targeted right on you and survival is dubious anyway.
For everyone else, you're just not going to get any warning about an incoming nuke, regardless of what type it is. Better to simply make sure you don't live and work near a likely target.
Fallout shelters are much more common (if still tricky to find sometimes), much cheaper to build, and it's much more likely that you'll know to use it. A fallout shelter is designed to ride out PURELY the fallout. Scout one out now, before there's a crisis. Have a few in mind for likely scenarios.
5 min after Nuke #1 goes off, or immediately after Nuke #2, start heading to that shelter. You have 5-15 min. ANY enclosed structure will protect you from Alpha and Beta particles. Gamma radiation is the problem. Like I said, 2ft concrete, 3ft packed earth. Most fallout is like sand or light gravel, so dust filters are nice but not strictly necessary. Complex air scrubbers like >>694025
wants are totally unnecessary. Even a deep basement will suffice.
Radiation drops exponentially. Which means it'll drop to nearly safe levels comparatively quickly even though it will linger at very low levels for decades.
You have to stay under cover for 2 weeks. In week 3, you can venture out briefly. In weeks 4-6, those excursions can get much longer, and that's probably the time to head for the hills if you don't have a purpose-build home shelter to live in. Keep in mind that everyone else is heading for the same hills; this is the fundamental flaw with "I'll ride it out innawoods"-- everyone else is trying to do the same thing.
Also keep in mind what might happen if people know you have a shelter and they don't.
>>699871
Yes you can get burns from Flash (the part that comes first, radiant heat, speed of light). Then comes the blast wave (speed of sound). Heat comes from the fireball and moves much more slowly, propagating through the air at a speed slower than sound.
If you're close enough to the detonation point that Heat comes before Blast, then you won't live to gloat on the internet about me being wrong. For the vast majority of victims, including nearly everyone who has any chance of survival, it goes Flash-Blast-Heat.
Wikipedia's article does a decent job going through the mechanisms. Look up "Effects of nuclear explosions".
>>699892
>Flash-Blast-Heat
people don't listen to this fucking retard he has no idea what he is talking about
>Approximately 35 percent of the energy from a nuclear explosion is an intense burst of thermal radiation, i.e., heat. The effects are similar to the effect of a two-second flash from an enormous sunlamp. Since the thermal radiation travels at roughly the speed of light, the flash of light and heat precedes the blast wave by several seconds, just as lightning is seen before thunder is heard.
>>699894
You're quoting the web page I send you to, which if you read it confirms what I'm saying.
>>699911
but it says the opposite
>>694036
well said. basically fallout is the vaporized particles in the earth which were radioactive materials to begin with now being in the air and not safely contained in the earth. You can protect yourself to some degree from these by avoiding exposure and thorough cleaning. I mean in a long term situation though you're going to have to go out and get food an water so you're in trouble. To an extent though radiation will dissipate as the airborne particles are dispersed by wind but also some dangerous materials would remain in plants that grew after with whatever materials were left in the soil
>>694040
>Those that weren't left sterile... well, let's just say they should have been
http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html
>No statistically significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy outcomes was seen among children of survivors.
>>696052
That was interesting. A lot of bad grammar and strangely worded sentences , but people should read.
For those genuinely interested in nuclear warfare strategy, and the centralized planning behind recovery:
https://archive.is/8m5vC
https://archive.is/JMp6X
https://archive.is/VR2b7
Nuclear war isn't just indiscriminately carpet bombing the whole surface of the planet. Understanding how a war is being conducted actually allows a person to make strategy of their own for survival.
>>693966
This is the plot of Fury Road, you fucking dumbass
>>699915
This senpai
>>698366
No shit, dude.
>>693949
>imlying the end of the world will involve nature surviving
That's not how some sects are planning it: >>>/pol/65693896
>>693966
Fuck yeah, Fallout 3!
>>693949
Heinlein : Farnhams Freehold - get blasted into a parrallel dimension and start a trading-post.
Pournelle : Lucifers Hammer - have a large redoubt in the 'hills' and let only the useful intellectuals know ; and they only get in if they bring science books , knowledge - or a complete copy of Wikipedia on Terrabyte USB-sticks
[ I paraphrase , of course ]
I suppose my points raised by the above are Two-fold :
1 : it is a rather fictional scenario
2 : though it is fiction is has been very well investigated in fiction
>>699880
A breath of reason like radiation-free air.
>>693949
Why the fuck would you want to? Life after a nuclear war would be far worse than death. The world won't turn into Fallout 4 and your bugout bag doesn't mean shit.
>Don't pity the dead, Harry
>>696733
>Here in the Alps, nothing would ever happen.
Kek. Why do you think East/West Germany never bombed each other?
>>693966
>dual machetes
You fucking faggot you didn't even watch the fucking movie, he has one machete the whole fucking time.
I had to watch that garbage fucking movie like 4 times a day because my cunty roommate wouldn't let it go that some blind faggot crossed america.
>>693966
Yeah, I loved The Walking Dead too.
