Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, definitely.

84 (53.8%)

Probably.

32 (20.5%)

Maybe, maybe not.

15 (9.6%)

Probably not.

14 (9%)

No, definitely not.

6 (3.8%)

Don't know.

5 (3.2%)

Total Members Voted: 155

[Nadaka]

Ew, I can not grammar at all. I need to edit that abomination.

[Il Palazzo]

Oh my, that was not meant to sarcastically call you out on your bad grammar. In fact, I haven't even noticed if there was any.
I simply meant to say that the way you describe the nuclear war being "not that bad" would in fact seem, to me at least, to be worse than dying under the blast.

[Lord Shonus]

It's "not that bad" compared to the most prevalent pop-culture image popularized by works like On the Beach, where the war destroys every living thing on Earth and renders it into an environment as hospitable as the Moon.

[Il Palazzo]

I had my vision of post-nuclear exchange world shaped by movies like Threads, Testament, and The Day After. I thought these were the cultural codifiers for what it would look like, but I can see how a "total genocide" idea would appear more appealing to the collective subconciousness.

[Saint]

It wouldn't be that bad once the radiation died off, the ONLY problem would be if we had enough nuclear material from a lot of weapons that blew around and fucked shit up, but life would still survive no matter what so it wouldn't be that bad.
Personaly I'd welcome a nuclear conflict to help cull the polulation of idiots, my hopes are that they attack new jersey and DC first.

Oh and a side note, people in my state are apparently exposed to undoubtedly high backround radiation, probably the highest in the country just because of how high up we are and how much uranium we have in this state.
If anything all it does is build a little character and resistance to radiation, no one has ever died from it that I know of anyway, and we have a fairly low cancer rate last I checked, the largest being skin cancer because we're "the wild wild west" and
a lot of jobs involve labour in the day's heat and sun, but I still only know one person out of all the old people I know who have skin cancer, and they got it from living in california for 50 years.

[Phmcw]

It wouldn't be that bad once the radiation died off, the ONLY problem would be if we had enough nuclear material from a lot of weapons that blew around and fucked shit up, but life would still survive no matter what so it wouldn't be that bad.
Personaly I'd welcome a nuclear conflict to help cull the polulation of idiots, my hopes are that they attack new jersey and DC first.

Google "nuclear winter" ; it will get the number of idiot at 0 by killing all humans. Or at least a damn lot of us.

[Lord Shonus]

No, it wouldn't. There have been volcanic eruptions within the industrial age that spewed more debris into the air than even a full-scale nuclear exchange in 1985 (when aresenals were near their peak) would have done. Being nuclear in nature would not make things any worse at all, and very likely the nuclear winter would be less severe than those in the 19th century were because there would be much less continuing to be spewed into the atmosphere from human settlements, many of which would have been destroyed, and those remaining would soon be cut off from polluting fuels such as petroleum and coal, further reducing the amount of pollution generated.

[Nadaka]

It wouldn't be that bad once the radiation died off, the ONLY problem would be if we had enough nuclear material from a lot of weapons that blew around and fucked shit up, but life would still survive no matter what so it wouldn't be that bad.
Personaly I'd welcome a nuclear conflict to help cull the polulation of idiots, my hopes are that they attack new jersey and DC first.

Google "nuclear winter" ; it will get the number of idiot at 0 by killing all humans. Or at least a damn lot of us.

This is a prime example of global nuclear war not actually being as bad as people say it would be.

[Phmcw]

A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet. The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, which are said to have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years.

Compared to climate change for the past millennium, even the smallest exchange modeled would plunge the planet into temperatures colder than the Little Ice Age (the period of history between approximately A.D. 1600 and A.D. 1850). This would take effect instantly, and agriculture would be severely threatened. Larger amounts of smoke would produce larger climate changes, and for the 150 Tg case produce a true nuclear winter, making agriculture impossible for years. In both cases, new climate model simulations show that the effects would last for more than a decade.

[Bauglir]

Sauce?

[Soadreqm]

Oh and a side note, people in my state are apparently exposed to undoubtedly high backround radiation, probably the highest in the country just because of how high up we are and how much uranium we have in this state.
If anything all it does is build a little character and resistance to radiation, no one has ever died from it that I know of anyway, and we have a fairly low cancer rate last I checked, the largest being skin cancer because we're "the wild wild west" and
a lot of jobs involve labour in the day's heat and sun, but I still only know one person out of all the old people I know who have skin cancer, and they got it from living in california for 50 years.

Radiation does not work that way.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, in theory, if there were enough radiation and a long-standing enough populace, evolution would make it work that way. But that might not be true in Saint's case.

[ggamer]

I don't think it would be possible. Most launch codes are kept under wraps, with only several high ranking officers knowing the password, and several officers required to launch, as well as, I'm sure, a time limit before a launch could be made.

That's generalized, but basically if one sociopathic officer in an army decided to launch a nuke, it would be very difficult, as well as having to come to terms with the fact that he is crazy.

Countries ruled by sociopathic maniacs, however, is another story.

[Scoops Novel]

We could definitely start using nuclear weapons given the right situation, and things could become very unpleasant. What worries me is that as time goes on, nuclear weapons will become children's toys compared to biological or other options that don't require giant centrifuges and a staff of engineers from varying disciplines to build. When the equipment and knowledge to make a racially targetted smallpox with the dormancy characteristics of HPV or herpes fits into a package that some random middle-class grad student has access to, there's no oversight. It pretty much becomes a free-for-all. That's discounting non-biological grey goo stuff, which, with the way things are looking, is honestly quite optimistic.

Seconded.

[10ebbor10]

You just necroed a 2 year old thread.

Congratulations.