Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: How would a Nuclear War (theoretically) play out, and how bad would it be?

  1. #1
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Norway, Nord-Tronderlag
    Posts
    10

    How would a Nuclear War (theoretically) play out, and how bad would it be?

    To be completely honest, nothing scares me more in the world than the possibility of a Nuclear War, something that in my opinion seems very much possible.
    After lecturing myself about TZM I've come to my own conclusion that there are three possible paths for mankind's future.

    #1 is the realization of TZM's ambitions; Transitioning into a Resource-based Economy through worldwide awareness.
    #2 is economic collapse, resource depletion, and societal breakdown thanks to the ongoing use of society's outdated structures, which will likely be followed by a harsh transition into an RBE out of pure necessity.
    And... #3 is Nuclear War.

    The latter is something I haven't honestly learned much about, but would be very interested in doing so. Not only what its probability is, but perhaps even more importantly, what its actual effects would be. I'm sure some of you are familiar with the "Fallout" video game franchise. A world completely destroyed by Nuclear War, where the only survivors were those in deep underground vaults. In reality, would it really be this bad? Is the entire surface of Earth completely doomed as soon as that first shot is taken?

    I'm sure there have been books, articles, or at least some form of media trying to predict exactly what I'm asking for, and I'd love to check these out if anyone can provide me with links to them. I'm sure such a mature and educated community as TZM would know something about this. If no links can be provided, share your thoughts on the matter. I'd love to hear what you guys have to say!
    droneBEE likes this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    713
    I'd start here



    I'd also research Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I've seen testimony of a man who witnessed the destruction and was able to see the blinding light from the blast through the meat of his arm and eyelids, yet he lives all these years later to tell about it.

    One or two blasts would't destroy humanity, but the retaliation would result in Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Putin's argument for being fully-armed is that MAD guarantees never having to use them. The only time nukes have been used is when the other country didn't have them.

  3. #3
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Norway, Nord-Tronderlag
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    One or two blasts would't destroy humanity, but the retaliation would result in Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Putin's argument for being fully-armed is that MAD guarantees never having to use them. The only time nukes have been used is when the other country didn't have them.
    But say the first shot is taken, and Russia and USA are forced to unleash their nuclear fury on each other. How would the entire world be destroyed by that? Surely there would be plenty of safer areas to evacuate to, something the countries themselves could organize to assure the survival of their population.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    627
    when people talk about total destruction they usually mean the end of the world as we know it, in terms of destruction of economy, the environment and large population centers.

    you can do the calculation:
    earth surface area = 510 million km2 - 70% water = 153 million km2.

    nuclear explosion surface area average destruction = 20km2.... some bombs are bigger and some smaller.

    153million / 20 = 7,650,000 missiles = 7.6 million missiles. but we only have 10,000 missiles.

    as you can see nuclear stockpile is not anywhere near being able to cover the surface of the earth and it wasn't the intension in the first place.

    unfortunately, the intension is to kill as many people and to cause damage to infrastructure. most people in the world live in large urban areas, so the devastation would be enormous. there is also radiation, failure of crops, genetic mutations and so on....

    a rough estimate could be between 500 million to 1 billion dead and a complete halt of human civilization, damage to crops, power plants and so on...it could take human civilization more than a century to heal from this kind of disaster.

    btw - if you are in europe, japan , india, china, etc... you are not safe from this exchange because its an all out exchange.

    if my calculations are wrong somebody can correct me.
    Ernest likes this.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    713
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyborg-Rox View Post
    But say the first shot is taken, and Russia and USA are forced to unleash their nuclear fury on each other. How would the entire world be destroyed by that? Surely there would be plenty of safer areas to evacuate to, something the countries themselves could organize to assure the survival of their population.
    It's a tough call because there is so much sensationalism. Yes, there will be those who hide, but there is the claim of nuclear winter and who really knows what that entails. Such sequence of events could snowball into another ice age lasting 1000s of years.

    A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years, and, according to the research, could be "catastrophic".[55][56] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...imatic_effects

    At what point does one come out of their hole? When is the radiation level safe? People were worried about Fukushima fallout all the way in CA and were citing a halflife of 30 yrs as a concern. Then again, bananas are radioactive, so who knows what's a legitimate concern with all the drama. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

    To live underground for any length of time would be difficult. You'd need a power source. Solar, wind and water power are out. Gas fuels will deplete too quickly. The only power source that would last long enough would be nuclear, which has a slew of its own problems (and expense). You'd need power to convert urine back into clean water because surface water is contaminated. You'd need oxygen regeneration. You'd need to synthesize vitamin D by generating UV light. Stockpiling food is easy, but where will you get a pocket-sun? And then, what if the hole you're hiding in turns out to be a radon accumulator? Ever check your house for radon? Try checking the basement.

    There are so many variables to consider. If there were a nuclear war, I wouldn't bother hiding. I'd get a lounge chair and watch the grand finale. The only safe space would be in space orbiting the earth. I think we should be building a community in space right now. Even if an asteroid hits earth, that would give humanity a chance at survival. Plans to get off this rock should be a priority because we should never have all our eggs in one basket. I think we're lucky to have had a relatively mild climate for such a long time and the meteoric assault has strangely abated. We should "make hay while the sun shines", as they say.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    749
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyborg-Rox View Post
    I'm sure some of you are familiar with the "Fallout" video game franchise. A world completely destroyed by Nuclear War, where the only survivors were those in deep underground vaults.
    Speaking of Video Games. I just saw a commercial about a new VG where you can design Civilization from the beginning. I wonder if something like this can be used to design a NLRBE type blueprint? I don't play them myself so I don't remember what the VG was called but it did peek my curiosity.

  7. #7
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Norway, Nord-Tronderlag
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Speaking of Video Games. I just saw a commercial about a new VG where you can design Civilization from the beginning. I wonder if something like this can be used to design a NLRBE type blueprint? I don't play them myself so I don't remember what the VG was called but it did peek my curiosity.
    I doubt it's going to be that thorough. It would be cool to see some sort of NLRBE setting in a video game though, and actually experience it.
    Ernest likes this.

  8. #8
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    35
    How to form a World Government and avoid nuclear war:

    All the superpowers of the world (USA, China, Russia) have to do is come to an agreement to turn North America, Russia and China into one union. The rest of the world would have to follow suit. They wouldn't really have much choice. As long as the superpowers are seperate entities, they are at war with themselves. The idea of a North American Union or a European Union still puts both at war with themselves as well as the rest of the world including Russia and China. To avoid a nuclear catastrophy, we need a World Union. This is the first step to creating peace. A one world government would eventually be formed out of the World Union and eventually lead to a sustainability movement, (Zeitgeist).
    Last edited by Brian Riedel; 4 Weeks Ago at 03:39 PM. Reason: I make mistakes but correct them
    droneBEE and HAL9000 like this.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,983
    One UNION is all this World ever needed...., no?

    The UN was allegedly designed to partially fill this need and may yet one day, but in today's world it often serves as a divider when attempting to conduct deeds that were originally intended to be benevolent....but lost focus...along the way..
    Last edited by droneBEE; 4 Weeks Ago at 03:32 AM.
    Brian Riedel and HAL9000 like this.

  10. #10
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    35
    The UN is a good idea but it doesn't seem to be working to it's full potential... why are USA, China, Russia scared of eachother if they are part of the UN? I have an idea of why but...

    They've got to drop the fear of eachother or as far as I can see the world will not last...
    HAL9000 likes this.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1