Nuclear Apocalypse
Register

User Tag List

Results 1 to 29 of 29
  1. #1
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Nuclear Apocalypse

    So if you look at 80-90% of fiction out there, there’s this idea that people would survive after a nuclear apocalypse in bunkers. And a strange thought occurred to me. Bunkers are solid targets that you can bombard with multiple nuclear missiles. No matter how sturdy a bunker is, shooting tens or even hundreds of missiles at it will bring it down.

    So: why wouldn’t you instead invest in building submarines capable of holding hundreds of people and maybe some frozen eggs in stasis? You could even grow your food via artificial meat and recycle your air, and you can get drinking water from processing salt water. If all else fails, you can just organize regular fishing trips (water is a very good radiation shield and if you go deep enough - perhaps even 200-300 m would be enough - you can avoid pretty much all of the fallout indefinitely, waiting for radiation levels to decline to tolerable levels). Assuming that no cobalt-thorium bombs are used, you really only need to stay put for around 6 months - after which you could start repopulating the Earth. With cobalt thorium bombs (which I believe no country would use), you’d need to stay out for 50 years. Current submarines can go without fuel resupply for nearly 25 years. All you’d need to do is give a submarine twice the usual amount of uranium fuel and you’d be set (as long as you could either a) fish, or b) grow food).
    submarines also have the advantage of being quite sturdy - nothing short of an underwater collision (or another submarine, or a mine, or a depth charge) is going to sink it.

    TL;DR Bunkers suck, submarines are dope.

  2. #2
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    In fact if my math is right 35 CM of water would be enough for a person to spend around 1-4 days without risk of radiation sickness or severe long term effects. You need 7 cm of water to halve radiation. So a layer of 70 cm would essentially allow indefinite human habitation (it would increase the risk of cancer, but hey)

  3. #3

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    So why not just make like a nuclear bunker that's built by the ocean or slightly underwater? It seems like you really like a submarine's nuclear reactor, and you're right in that it can efficiently transform uranium to energy. It takes very little space, and it lasts a long time. A bunker has a lot going for it. It's cheaper, you can grow food in it, you could potentially make artificial meat, you would just need to either hide the fact that you have a bunker so people don't shoot missiles at it.

    I think the reason bunkers don't use nuclear energy is just because it costs too much, or maybe it's because you need a permit from the government. Submarines, while ridiculously expensive function as a war machine, which is why we have them.

    Submarines can relocate though. That's dope.

  4. #4

  5. #5

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    I think most people don't expect to be directly targeted when they're making a nuclear bunker shelter.
    If engaging in total war, civilian population centers, military bases, and missile silos are the assumed targets, not random areas in the countryside
    Quote Originally Posted by MattZed View Post
    deathworld's and RLVG's suicides made me lul. I take a lot of pleasure in knowing that I gave you an night action, and that you used it to kill yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    At least Mesk has lewdy lefty and raunchy righty. You're not even Canadian.
    Quote Originally Posted by Unknown1234 View Post
    BRO HUUUUUUMP!! That's so Mesk.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    fucketh me in the ass

  6. #6

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Quote Originally Posted by deathworlds View Post
    I think most people don't expect to be directly targeted when they're making a nuclear bunker shelter.
    If engaging in total war, civilian population centers, military bases, and missile silos are the assumed targets, not random areas in the countryside
    Right. Aside from the one-off nuke that malfunctioned and lost it's trajectory mid-flight, bunkers aren't a priority for anyone.

    But to the main topic, the problem seems to be the logistics. Loading hundreds of people into a submarine sounds difficult.

    Besides that, let's talk about why we even use bunkers:

    In this Doomsday scenario one nation has launched a nuclear salvo against you. Your nation has systems in place to recognize a first-strike and redundancies to confirm it. After ensuring the thread, 5 minutes after launch, they fire their missiles back. You now have 30 minutes left after the emergency is send out across all publicly available channels to find shelter. Personally, it's unlikely that even if I knew where a bunker was, I'd make it there in the chaos.

    Bunkers are usually not designed for the blast anyway. They're refuge for the immense amount of fallout afterwards.
    (๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶

  7. #7
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    True but the Cheyenne mountain complex would almost certainly be targeted in a war, simply because it is a major command center. I doubt whether civilian population centers would be targeted in times of war.

  8. #8
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    I believe we wouldn’t be killed off n the event of a nuclear war though.

  9. #9
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Civilization would probably not end, either. The Black Death killed anywhere between 25% to 75% of the European population, and yet here we are.

  10. #10

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Civilization would probably not end, either. The Black Death killed anywhere between 25% to 75% of the European population, and yet here we are.
    The point of nuclear war generally isn't to kill millions of civilians and end the human race. Even if it could, what's the point of anything?

    Millions dying is more of a side effect. I personally think learning of an upcoming ICBM defense would be what sets off any sort of nuclear aggression.
    (๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶

  11. #11
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Agreed. It’s just that its a common (mis-)conception that nuclear war would be the apocalypse.

  12. #12

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Agreed. It’s just that its a common (mis-)conception that nuclear war would be the apocalypse.
    It's pretty widely disputed. Some say we all just die immediately, other say within a few decades some say we'll be fine because bombs aren't as radioactive as they used to be.

    Either way, probably not a good idea.
    (๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶

  13. #13

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Agreed. It’s just that its a common (mis-)conception that nuclear war would be the apocalypse.
    Mmmmm, I think it would be, though. If two countries shoot eachother, the war between them probably isn't over, first of all. And then you get the immense amount of radioactive fallout that causes illness if it doesn't straight up kill people. Animals get it too. Also, annihilating life on the other continent can be tempting if you think the people there will forever be enemies, or if you think you won't be able to invade or occupy the place. It's a bit like razing cities in civ 4 lol.

    I'll stick with Frinckles' point, though: it's probably not a good idea.
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  14. #14

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Nuke the polar ice caps. GG humanity.
    Spoiler : Forum Mafia :

    FM VI: Ash (Sinner) FM VII: Glen (Drug Dealer) FM VIII: Liane (Vigilante) FM IX: Andrei (Reserved Proletarian) FM X: fm Deathfire123 (Modkilled Blacksmith) FM XI: Corki (Citizen) FM XIII: Phoebe (Bodyguard) FM XIV: Helena (Grave Robber) FM XV: FM Pikachu (Mayor) FM XVI: FM Master Chef (Escort)

  15. #15

  16. #16

  17. #17

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Quote Originally Posted by Frinckles View Post
    Do this to Mars and we have another home in a few hundred years.
    Shut up Elon.
    Spoiler : Forum Mafia :

    FM VI: Ash (Sinner) FM VII: Glen (Drug Dealer) FM VIII: Liane (Vigilante) FM IX: Andrei (Reserved Proletarian) FM X: fm Deathfire123 (Modkilled Blacksmith) FM XI: Corki (Citizen) FM XIII: Phoebe (Bodyguard) FM XIV: Helena (Grave Robber) FM XV: FM Pikachu (Mayor) FM XVI: FM Master Chef (Escort)

  18. #18
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Mmmmm, I think it would be, though. If two countries shoot eachother, the war between them probably isn't over, first of all. And then you get the immense amount of radioactive fallout that causes illness if it doesn't straight up kill people. Animals get it too. Also, annihilating life on the other continent can be tempting if you think the people there will forever be enemies, or if you think you won't be able to invade or occupy the place. It's a bit like razing cities in civ 4 lol.

    I'll stick with Frinckles' point, though: it's probably not a good idea.
    The radioactive fallout lasts for around 6 months. And, btw, if Russia were to launch its operational nukes at the US, only 1.2% of the entire US could be completely bombarded with nukes. It would definitely kill millions and might possibly look somewhat like the Black Death.

  19. #19

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Quote Originally Posted by Frinckles View Post
    Do this to Mars and we have another home in a few hundred years.
    What about you use non-radioactive weapons for that instead lol
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  20. #20

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    The radioactive fallout lasts for around 6 months. And, btw, if Russia were to launch its operational nukes at the US, only 1.2% of the entire US could be completely bombarded with nukes. It would definitely kill millions and might possibly look somewhat like the Black Death.
    Well, you don't have to bomb the whole country lol, just the cities. You can also space the nukes up a bit so that more surface is irradiated. Also, the "less radiations" argument is only valid if great powers don't lie about their nukes... which they very probably do.
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  21. #21

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Why wouldn't you target civilian centres with your nukes? Isn't the ability to annihilate enemy infrastructure the main advantage of nukes? We didn't exactly target small Japanese cities or military bases the last time we used nukes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  22. #22

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    Why wouldn't you target civilian centres with your nukes? Isn't the ability to annihilate enemy infrastructure the main advantage of nukes? We didn't exactly target small Japanese cities or military bases the last time we used nukes.
    I don't know much about warfare. I might be derping out lol
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  23. #23
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    Why wouldn't you target civilian centres with your nukes? Isn't the ability to annihilate enemy infrastructure the main advantage of nukes? We didn't exactly target small Japanese cities or military bases the last time we used nukes.
    Dunno. This doesn’t mean much but both Russia and America have agreed not to target population centers in the event of a nuclear war. Obviously industrial targets would be targeted in spite of this pledge - cruise missiles exist but as far as I know, there are no high yield precision cruise missiles that can be fired out of an ICBM silo. So civilian targets would possibly be targeted - although this would probably occur with relatively low yield, highly accurate weapons. While the death toll would be considerable, it would probably not envelop an entire city unless the city were small.

    Furthermore, the first things that would get targeted almost beyond the shadow of doubt would be missile silos and storage facilities. A lot of nukes would probably be wasted on those. I don’t really know, but my suspicion is that the military has some serious air defense units protecting nuclear areas - so you’d probably need many rockets to take down one nuclear silo. Lots of rockets would probably be used tactically, in support of a ground war. So the number of missiles they’d use on cities would be rather limited.

  24. #24

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Dunno. This doesn’t mean much but both Russia and America have agreed not to target population centers in the event of a nuclear war. Obviously industrial targets would be targeted in spite of this pledge - cruise missiles exist but as far as I know, there are no high yield precision cruise missiles that can be fired out of an ICBM silo. So civilian targets would possibly be targeted - although this would probably occur with relatively low yield, highly accurate weapons. While the death toll would be considerable, it would probably not envelop an entire city unless the city were small.

    Furthermore, the first things that would get targeted almost beyond the shadow of doubt would be missile silos and storage facilities. A lot of nukes would probably be wasted on those. I don’t really know, but my suspicion is that the military has some serious air defense units protecting nuclear areas - so you’d probably need many rockets to take down one nuclear silo. Lots of rockets would probably be used tactically, in support of a ground war. So the number of missiles they’d use on cities would be rather limited.
    We can shoot down nuclear missiles?! How come they have evasion 100 on civ 5?! That's pure fear mongering right there
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  25. #25
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    That reminds me. In a certain Cub IV scenario you can literally make your cities immune to nukes.

  26. #26
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    We can shoot down nuclear missiles?! How come they have evasion 100 on civ 5?! That's pure fear mongering right there
    I’m not sure how it’s done. I believe they use high-power lasers for this

  27. #27

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    Why wouldn't you target civilian centres with your nukes? Isn't the ability to annihilate enemy infrastructure the main advantage of nukes? We didn't exactly target small Japanese cities or military bases the last time we used nukes.
    Nuclear tactics were in thier infancy when we nuked Japan. You don't target Civilian centers because Civilian centers aren't the ones shooting back. That in and of itself is a deterrent from doing so and a method of keeping civilian centers as least likely to be hit. There are a few exceptions to this, the white house, for example.
    (๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶

  28. #28

    Re: Nuclear Apocalypse

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    We can shoot down nuclear missiles?! How come they have evasion 100 on civ 5?! That's pure fear mongering right there
    We "can" but we can't. But we "can" maybe.

    M.A.D. becomes useless if annihilation is not mutual.

    So don't say you can shoot down nukes.
    (๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶

  29. #29

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •