Considering Russia has built shelters underground for over 40 million people in the most densely populated areas of European Russia, how many people can realistically survive nuclear war and its effects on a global scale?
I predict 40% of Africa will starve within 5 to 10 years from the Apocalypse without Western aid, all this without a single nuke landing on their continent (presumably).
Nuke experts please come over here and enlighten us with your knowledge.
Other urls found in this thread:
defconwarningsystem.com
archive.org
inesap.org
thebulletin.org
smithsonianmag.com
voxday
archive.is
science.howstuffworks.com
oism.org
archive.is
youtube.com
oshkosh
pierce
twitter.com
The question isn't whether 40 million Russians can survive underground for a few months, the question is how many of those Russians will starve after emerging due to severe decline of agricultural activity during the nuclear winter?
If it happens, I hope the death count is several billion. Otherwise, it will have been a waste of a conflict.
Depends on if it's nuclear or not and the reason for the war. If nuclear then the goal of depopulating the planet to 1 billion or less is a realistic possibility. You can do the mathematics based on the world population now and say about 1/7th or 1/8th of the world would survive the initial nuclear exchange. More will die from starvation, disease, tribal violence and so forth.
I think the numbers the conspiracy theorists use are very accurate with forecasting such events. IIRC Russia claims it would directly attack a lot of the Mid-West to annihilate our food supply and radiate farming land instead of going for blows against strategic military installations and major population centers like the U.S. would. Then any attack that makes Israel feel threatened will result in the Samson Option. They will destroy Europe just out of spite. So basically the entire first world would be knocked back into the Sixth World while the Third World floods in thinking somehow we shit food and money.
Without going into too much detail, if nuclear about 5 billion dead in about 20 years. Lack of clean water, disease outbreaks and famine (due to major loss of crop production and insufficient logistics to move it around) will actually the biggest killers, way more than the blasts and radiation. Why 5 billion? Because Africa, India and China are utterly fucked (in fact anywhere with such high population densities would amplify the problems I mentioned).
6 million
I think they'd go for power grids first.
The power grid in every nation, especially the U.S., is extremely weak. One high elevation nuclear explosion a couple hundred miles above North America will wipe out our entire country. I'm sure every country would try to do that first and then the rest of the salvos target key points. In Russia's case wipe out our food supply while the U.S. would go for mass effect.
300 million starving with no food and little farming land will be far more catastrophic.
So all these whites are going to die, yet the third world shitskins and the elites would be unharmed?
I wonder who would want that.
I truly wonder who that could be?
WW3 is going to be shit, we have to stop it at any cost. Or else we are going to be replaced in one single war, and jews are going to rule their brown slaves for ages.
600 million* or possibly 6 gorillion depending how the kikes authors decide to put it into the history books
Don't think for a second that China and India will escape this… In the case of either India or that other festering shit hole Pakistan they would both see this as an opportunity to nuke each other..
Really do not underestimate the hatred between these two.
China for a start relies heavily on food imports as it can not even come close to feeding itself and you can imagine what will happen in a short time due to climate problems due to a nuclear war.
More over they will not be exempt from an exchange.
There will be no isolated places even from a small exchange.. if this happens it wont matter where the fuck you are you are fucked…. please watch the video and understand.
I'm estimating about 6 gorrilion dead. All the corpses conveniently buried beneath a field of solid concrete.
Most liberals will die because they dont know a shit, rednecks will survive and feminists will be used as a cheap labor/balls relief, ruskies will take a couple of bottles of vodka per loli and shit will be the same while them will go for the south of Chile and Argentina.
That video is excessively fear-mongering. It claims 50 hiroshima-sized bombs would wreck the global climate due to debris but we've set off a huge number of larger bombs in open air with no problems.
This. No part of the world would go unscathed in a nuclear exchange, in fact it's highly probable that an exchange between just two countries would broaden into multiple other countries, at the very least prompting world-wide conventional warfare. I'm a believer in the scenario where if just one nuke is launched (it wouldn't be, a nation willing to carry out a nuclear strike would probably go for broke and launch many), then several dozen to a hundred more from somewhere will also be launched, which would basically be a world-ending event.
Australia and New Zealand will be the final white strongholds.
They already are.
nigger
In the US those that would be killed outright or shortly after would all be nonwhites or shitlibs with the exception of North Dakota and those in the spillway of the Hoover Dam. Those that survive would by either the Uber-rich if they survived the backlash from people who blame them for the war in the first place or those who are self-sufficient and have the guns. The Military will convert to a feudalistic junta microstates since they have a ton of guns already, however these microstates won't be stable and will morph and merge constantly for the better part of a decade.
list goes on
Nah, india and pakistan would nuke the shit out of each other and a billion nonwhite mudslim shitskins would be removed from the genepool instantly, then within a month thanks to no food aide another several billion would die including africans.
Diversity propaganda from the usual suspects has started up in aussieland.
if there is some great white exodus to Australia, it won't be before it's made into a Chinese colony. Besides white identity has a long way to go in Aussie-land, as I understand it they're just as virulently cucked as Bongland and Burgerland
Basically in closing
Basically WW3 would be the end of the kikes at this point, white people, even as cucked as we are at this point, are still to socially cohesive with each other and self-sufficient.
Not even the oceans, deserts or wildlife will save us. I can see foreign armies that survived the nuking will send everything our way. So unfortunately, we're not that much safer long term.
My main concern with a third world war would be that it'd be direct armed conflict between the US and Russia in Europe, i.e. the extinguishing of millions more white lives, and the replacement of them via even more massive shitskin migration. "oy vey goy, you warlike whites got yourselves massacred! guess you need some more noble brown people to pick that economy back up!"
I just hope to god that if the US tried to start a war with russia, there would be some kind of coup, or mass resistance/refusal by the soldiers to fight. But that rarely happens, usually soldiers are excellent goyim who will do what they're told.
Pakistani military commanders truly believe they can win a war against India if they use first strike policy followed by a quick occupation of the Kashmir.
America, the UN and Russia (best buddy with India) stand in their way.
I tell you, if WWIII happens there will be a separate Indo-Pakistani nuclear war too, because those people can't wait for the opportunity to settle this once and for all.
And unlike in white countries, where Russians and Westerners like eachother but the elites don't, Pakis and Poos despise eachother and would never let go of the opportunity to wage a war they can win.
In the end, I don't think a total global thermonuclear war would exceed 1 billion deaths, HOWEVER famine, radiation poisoning, disease, firestorms and so forth will bring down the total world population by a large number over the course of the years.
Half (3-4 billions) would be a realistic estimate.
Our priority as citizens is to preserve fertile lands in remote locations such as Argentina, so when shit hits the fan millions of white people can move there and wait for the effects of such global nuclear holocaust to go away. It may take years if not decades.
NZ Fag here
Sorry to break it to you unless you are in the South Island of New Zealand it is not very white any more.. The Government and leftist shit heads are trying to fill this place up with rag heads and curry niggers as fast as possible.. not to mention the number of rice niggers being imported..
However the South Island is still very white for now.. but cucked
How far advance of a warning will there be before the n00ks start flying?
Where the fuck to go that's safe within the USA?
That's because bombs exploded in open air don't produce the same amount of fallout. A nuclear winter would ensue from the massive amounts of debris.
However, that vid seems to go along with TTAPS research - and like you said is fear-mongering. In this case, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Refer to Cresson Kearny for more accurate assessments.
Parts of Oregon, if certain nuclear target and fallout maps are accurate. Don't take that as actual advice to plan for, as the maps may be outdated.
Probably none as I suspect the development of anti-missile systems has led to Russia smuggling nukes into place in advance.
Very little forewarning. You might have 10 mins. More than likely, you won't know until the first wave has landed and you can see mushroom clouds sprouting.
Where can you go? Anywhere outside of the city or urban environments is the place to be. Once there you need to dig an emergency fallout shelter. Even in urban environments that don't get hit its going to be hell since nigs will be out looting, pillaging and raping - they don't know anything about radiation and so will be out in force for days after the event.
My sense is that white people, as a collective whole, are tired. The 20th century was disastrous for us, by the end of it we'd almost wiped ourselves out and now we want nothing more than a safe, peaceful neighborhood and a quiet job, to the exclusion of basically everything else that used to concern us. You can see this in all levels of our societies: King nigger the First Black President because a white guy couldn't be fucked arguing about it. Suq Madiq the Muslim mayor of the CAPITAL OF ENGLAND because the city is already > 60% nonwhite, oh well who really cares right. Rampant feminism (men couldn't be assed saying no) backfiring on European women because of uncontrolled immigration (again, thanks to some white man who decided it was too hard to stop it and that things would fix themselves eventually).
And now that war is coming, where will the greater European diaspora retreat to once the fog clears? Europe isn't ours anymore. The US, Canada, Australia, NZ, they're not ours either. A welfare leeching nigger can go back to Africa and be surrounded by his kind. A violent Arab can form his own caliphate, or he could just go back to the middle east and be surrounded by his own kind. I've no doubt all the Chinese will just fuck off back to China, the Indians to their Designated Streets, and so on. But we have nowhere to go, and good luck convincing anyone else to care. Our history is exhausting and our people grow up feeling that they have already lived a thousand ages before they even turn 20.
That first strike map you're referencing is outdated by like 20 yrs, I live on one of the black dots and that power plant it sits on has been decommissioned and destroyed for almost 10 years.
Sure our cities will fall, but the cities aren't ours anymore, we have all spread our among our rural areas and nonwhite invaders have taken over our cities. The nukes will purge all the nonwhites from our old cities and new ones will rise from the rubble, and when the rest of the world cries for our foreign aide we will say "FUCK OFF WE'RE FULL"
So in a way, nuclear war would be a good reset for western civilization. I just hope it's not the only one we have available, because the other options are pretty bleak.
Are you talking about this one or the one from the 1970s?
Zero 6 million Jews oy vey
I'm referencing that one, one of those black dots at least has been decommissioned and destroyed for almost a decade
It matters not. That plant can be reactivated, any smart enemy would target every potential threat in order to completely destroy America's military capabilities.
Look at this map
Russia currently possesses 2500 active nuclear warheads, complete neutralization of the US requires 2000 warheads. Coincidence? No.
The reason why the number of nuclear warheads decreased over the decades was because they got rid of small-yield tactical nukes (like the Davy Crockett) and airborne-delivered warheads/submarine launched missiles. The core of the ICBM nuclear doctrine hasn't changed at all.
Most modern ICBM nukes range from 800 kt to 1,2 mt. This was pretty much the same in the 70s and 80s.
Modern bombs (from the 1990s onwards) are far more efficient than Cold War bombs. Yes, some like Ivy Mike and Castle Bravo were immensely powerful, but unleashed excessive amounts of radiation and their power wasn't fully understood.
Small nukes are being replaced by powerful convential warheads such as the MOAB and FOAB.
TL/DR: Nuclear doctrine hasn't changed, it just evolved along with the weapons. Any facility that could be quickly returned to production, any airfield that could be used to host air fleets, any port that can harbour carriers and subs, etc. They're all fair game and they WILL be targeted.
They haven't. They've been left to rot or "dismantled" like the hordes of Russian tanks that were allegedly destroyed in the 90s and that magically reappered once the war in Donbass kicked in. The Cold War never really ended and both sides are still ready to rain nukes upon eachother in case of necessity. They just got rid of obsolete fission-only weapons with low yield.
they wil have each other :^)
WW3 can't come soon enough.
We can get rid of the caliphate of North Rhine-Westphalia and can rebuild Germany.
Around 7 billion :^)
Most useful post in the thread tbqh famalam
The only casuality in World War III will be the truth. It will be the Cold War 2.0. The elite don't want a war, they want drama that will scare the children into doing what they're told. If the US had wanted a shooting war with Russia they would have had it around 1960, and they would have won it hands down.
The US had such overwhelming military, and industrial superiority over the communists then that they would obliterated them causing with 30 to 50 million casualities.
The Russians were inferior in everything in quantity and quality. Their missiles were so bad that they could have fired them at the US all day without hitting anything. That's why the Russians wanted to get their missiles into Cuba, 100 miles off the US coast. It was their only chance of hitting anything.
Well this wouldn't do at all. The US didn't want to win a war, they wanted a continuing crisis that could be milked for political and economic and social benefits for as long as possible. Such as international conferences that would increase co-operation among nations and thus reduce nationalism. Also populations
who are under psychological stress are easier to manipulate. Wartime also lets you pass laws that otherwise would be opposed.
So the US had to reduce it's own defence capability, while increasing that of the Russians. So they gradually, over the course of the 1960s, reduced the amount
of American bombers and missiles.
Meanwhile at the same time, the US elite
helped to build up Russians. The bankers
organised huge loans for their industry.
They traded them wheat. Most importantly, they sold them the technology to improve their weapons. For example, intercontinental US missiles were the best in the world. These missiles needed sophisticated ball bearings that only the US could make. The Russians were at least a decade behind. In the late 1960s the US Commerce department and the US state department actually colluded to sell the Russians the machines that made the ball bearings. With this technology Russian missiles equaled the US ones in technology for the first time.
How did the US hide the fact that they were degrading their own defence capabilities while at the same time increasing that of the Russians? They launched the Vietnam war. You know how a magician disguises his tricks by making you pay attention to one hand while out of sight the other hand is holding something? It's the same principle here. There was blanket coverage of the war in the media. While everyone was mesmerized by the public display of death and destruction and apparent military might, they didn't notice that little paragraph on page 20 of the newspaper that announced the cancelling of a firms contract to build 100 engines for US bombers. What the average American saw was a dozen communists killed in a napalm attack on a village, what they didn't see was the 100 sophisticated intercontinental missiles churned out by Russian factories using sophisticated American technology, technology that their own US government had given the enemy.
The US government was like a con-artist, it shouted in their citizens face to distract their attention, while secretly stealing money from their backpocket at the same time.
An old, well known classic on the US government selling the Russians technology to improve their weapons, while at the same time downgrading their own capability. Familiar stuff, but well worth a read.
"The best Enemy Money can Buy" by Antony Sutton:
NSW-fag here. Used to live in Melbourne inner-city.
They are some of the most Politically Corrucked people going around.
[spoiler]Am on a 20acre piece of land now. Hoping to get shit setup before shit goes down.[spoiler]
My spoiler was spoiled.
I bet the Jews are behind this.
Joint Base Lewis-Mccord is in Washington. It's the home of 1st Special Forces Group, the 2nd Ranger Battalion, and a gorillion other important units. It's gonna catch a bunch of nukes.
WWIII Casualties
Human: 200,000,000.001
Fauna: 8,000,000,000.002
Flora: 10,000,000,000,000.005
One thing to remember is that EMP technology has also improved. With enough of these they don't have to destroy infrastructure when they can make most of the sophisticated electronic equipment unusable for up to 3 days at a time. It would let them keep useful infrastructure intact for their invasion forces.
spoiler is two of these at the start and end of your spoilered text: *
I'm coming to live on your farm m80
Fucking kikes.
Lmao fuck right off, I was there when they imploded the plant, you know whats there now? Empty fucking field.
Lurk Moar
depending on how much china values soothing their butthurt over interest i'd start backing up chinese cartoons and drawings right now
Nukes are frankly not that effective at killing people off, even if every weapon in every arsenal reached its preferred target, that would be a hilarious overestimate of their potency. And that assumption that more than a fraction would make it to their target is equally naive.
People have a lot of silly notions about nukes based on decades of literal propaganda from both sides.
I hope every country has nukes pointed at Israel just to insure they're wiped off the face of the Earth.
Russia Power grid is probably stronger than the US, big chunk of it aren't interconnected (which prevent rolling cascade effects), and relies on independent nuclear/gas power plants networks and most of it is buried because the heavy snow would fuck the cables constantly (which renders it mostly immune save from dedicated EMP strikes). Also as insane as it sounds it's actually more modern than the US one (which is only working by copious application of duct tape, spit, staples and yarn. While the Russia one works by hammer hits, vodka and orthodox prayers)…
The US grid blackout 1/4 of the country on it's own without any bomb flying.
The thought of a Russian nuke flying to America over Europe, but falling on my house instead by accident is also worrying enough.
I agree that the accuracy and destructive power of nukes is overestimated though.
We could end this conflict with as little as 6 million casualties.
Northwest, away from cities. No wonder the federal authorities own most of the land there.
This is what they'll do to suivive
This. It's painful even walking around Auckland now, everything's fucked, poos and mudslimes everywhere. We failed brus.
Also if WWIII kicks off expect the chinks to annex us for our farmland.
all the kikes
What you don't consider is that while the US built up a nice looking enemy to make its people afraid of, at what point does that enemy become "real"? It isn't a secret that Hitler had financial backing from people that would later regret it, likewise its possible that Russia can break away from being a scarecrow if it think it can defend itself. Unless you think that the point was to milk the US of all its wealth before fleeing to some bunker in a 3rd world counter and letting the US get destroyed.
Yep, I only recently started reading about this stuff but what you say seems true. During the cold war scientists from both sides did nothing to dispel the myths of nuclear war, either because of propaganda purposes or they were content for people to believe it would be the literal end of the world if it happened. It's only been recently that some theories like the theory of nuclear winter have been looked at with more skepticism.
With any luck? Lots of marxists and their pet niggers.
They survived communism (cannibalism, shoe eating, bug eating, 10 year long famine, ect.)…
…a nuclear winter would be nothing to them!
The real question is: How would the western liberals survive?
Yes the liberals! I assume all of the based americans would rather die with a gun in their hand than let their enemies win. which mean all the black and mexican trash would be hidding with their cucks.
The people directly killed by the missiles
The people killed by radiation
The people killed by starvation caused by breakdown of society
The people killed by violence caused by breakdown of society
The people killed in other countries by starvation and/or violence caused by the breakdown of the global economy
But
Nuclear winter probably isn't real. Every paper I've seen on it has been deeply flawed. The last one made the elementary mistake of scaling firestorms linearly to yield and ignoring that of the two bombs dropped on actual cities Nagasaki didn't even cause much of a firestorm because of topological factors. They also over-estimate how high smoke from these fires is going to go into the atmosphere. The same models predicted a slight global cooling effect after the Kuwait oil fields were burned as Saddam retreated during the Iran-Iraq war, but the models were wrong and only a lower local effect was measured.
I can't help but feel nuclear winter was a political device used to make us even more scared of nukes so that the disarmament campaign could be effective. Of course nukes will still kill many many many people anyway but a nuclear war isn't the end of planetary civilization.
I'm not an expert, but as far as i know the bomb what was used at Nagasaki is like a petard compared to the modern bombs…
True. I'm just saying that their basic assumption of nuke always = firestorm is flawed, and then on top of that they were scaling linearly to yield, and then on top of that the smoke models that keep getting reused were empirically disproven.
I'll see if I can dig up the paper for you, but I might have to root about for a bit.
Not necessary, but thanks pal!
As i said, i'm not really good at this field, and God help us, i never want to know if nuclear winter is a hoax or not.
Im more like the guy who believe in Rommel's words ("Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning"). And nuclear bombs worth shit (my opinion).
Shooting the subhumans one by one maybe take time, but atleast we gain fertile lands, hisotical ruins, and other nice stuffs to preserve….
Russia -> 50 - 70 million casualties
USA -> 30 - 40 mil
Canada -> 4 - 5 mil
Ukraine -> 15 - 20 mil
China -> 20 - 50 mil
Japan -> 4 - 5 mil
South korea -> 18 - 20 mil
North korea -> 8 - 12 mil
UK -> 5 - 8 mil
Germany -> 4 - 6 mil
Iran -> 15 - 20 mil
Turkey -> 18 - 25 mil
India -> 8 - 10 mil
Pakistan -> 5 - 6 mil
Saudi arabia - 5 - 8 mil
Israel -> less than 1 million
Russia, north korea and iran will be utterly destroyed due to dropping of nuclear missiles and there will be a new one world government.
We literally haven't done that at all. We rely more on our nuclear trident subamarine launched mssiles more than ever
Are you including blacks as humans or fauna?
You know it's a major nuclear power, right ?
And also an (((american))) puppet
I just realised that if Australia don't annex the whole Papua then there is going to be massive illegal migrants from the above. Australia may be safe from nuke range but not the illegal migrants. I hope the Australian government secure the North Australian coasts and not to send the soldiers into war as that will reduce the border security.
The picture is related
That doesn't make sense for Canada, Toronto alone has 2 million people packed into a shithole. That's only three cities worth of people and there are more nuclear targets than that in Ontario alone.
You nuts?
That's what America is for. :^)
wtf? that wasn't a thumbnail when I last used it..
I couldn't find the one I wanted (the link 404d), but I did find a different article that claims that creating firestorms in more than 50 cities would be enough for drastic cooling, but the problem is that this already happened in WWII, so… ?
inesap.org
INESAP is a political organization.
Well goys If You dont want to die because Your city gets erased from the map just Check Your local synagoges, If jews start desapairing due to emergency vacations, leave the funking city, as simple as that
:^)
Then how is Australia supposed to stop the influx from the above? You tell me m8. Annex the Papua and bring the wap back. It is not possible to fight in US-Russia war while fighting the illegal migrants in Australia at same time. It's very illogical if Aussie government decide to fight in US-Russia war.
Didn't even read the thread, but potentially 7,000,000,000+
No one survives a nuclear war between superpowers, and since Russia can never hope to match the U.S. in a conventional ground war, they must go nuclear. At this point I can only assume that the western governments want to trigger the apocalypse for some reason
Of course nationalism is rising so the traitorous cucked government don't want that as they will be hanged if civil wars start before the nuclear war start. I am not an expert in war planning I would be wrong.
Actually, to expand on this a bit, there is a cap of a post (i dont have it but im sure someone does) that says that Russia has been working on a nuclear missile defence system and the U.S has as well, and that projections were for Russia to finish theirs first, thus lowering the threshold for nuclear war and minimizing mutually assured destruction.
Any nuclear nation, however, could potentially target any majorly forested area in the boreal forest belt and create enough nuclear ash in the atmosphere to cause nuclear winter. If that is true, and it seems plausible to me, then there is always the threat of mutually assured destruction.
Tl,dr we all gonna die
If nuclear winter isn't real i would say i'm in a pretty good situation here in Hueland compared to the North hemisphere and other parts of the world . Great croop`s production and avoinding all major hits. Would still have to face hordes of mongrels looting and chimping out but together with some based armed friends i think i can manage.
Remember me when you see giant yellow and green boxes of provisions dropping from the sky.
I keep hearing people doubt the idea of nuclear winter. Do you have any reason or evidence to doubt it?
I'm not questioning you, just genuinely curious. I've never seen the evidence against it
Just to cover the basics so I'm clear everyone is on the same page…
Nukes used for war and political means will first be high altitude nukes with the intent of causing EMPs to wipe out enemy electronics and communications.
Nobody wants a nuclear winter either, any nuclear exchange is designed to give the opponent enough function to surrender.
Any war or conflict against actually powerful nations today is all instead done by subverting them internally by either manipulating their countries citizens or their elites.
If population removal was a goal a much better idea would be to use a viral agent. It would be possible to create a common cold like virus that kills all people of a certain genetic background if infected by it as it may target a particular synthesis process of some kind only held by that group.
Australia used to have all of Papua but were too pussy after WW2 and let Indonesia take it over because they didn't want to fight them. They gave it back to the natives who lost it the next year in the war with the indos, they gave it up to save face as they couldn't keep it. They let the natives who had helped them in the region during WW2 against the japs just get genocided by the fucking Indonesians. Indonesia was also thought to be a buffer against China and the commies but now it is a battery packed islamic festering ulcer of the pacific.
Now if WW3 goes down and Russia and the USA decide to hit each other they will likely be pretty out of world events for some time. China is also a nuclear power however and can do a bit of dickwaving. As Australia has zero nukes and produces a lot of food that china does not have it would be in Chinese interests to exert a huge amount of pressure on Australia and effectively take it over. The alternative for them would otherwise be using their influence in Africa but that's not great as it lacks infrastructure, is further away and not many Chinese. Australia on the other hand is close, has infrastructure, has lots of Chinese living there compared to other nations.
If Russia and USA go at each other Australia will become China's complete bitch. It would be a profitable and necessary endeavor for them and Australia would just concede with threats in such a situation. Hard to find translated pages and plans about this but you might be able to, I have none to upload at the moment.
Virtually every nuclear strategist and war game expectations would suggest a more tactical exchange…? It'd be bad but not apocalyptic kind of deal. The biggest winner would be South America though.
Tbh i have no idea. This is the kind of thing that requires really extensive research and knowledge in several areas.
Some anons have posted even in this thread that some of the old models didn`t matched with the data of some real events, but who really knows.
Also chek`them . Maybe we should put a frog in the next flag of the Empire.
IT IS STILL 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
Just like how the Rothchilds told all their fellow equal in G-d Jews to flee Germany right?
If a nuclear exchange was ever going to happen, it would be when a very small number of people knew it was going to happen. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't even evacuate Obama for it, because what does he really do besides read teleprompter?
Ok, but what happens to the radioactive fallout from high altitude nuclear detonations
What's the current population of the puppet nation of Israel? It will be that plus some more.
In a nuclear war casulties would be 99%+ in the long run. Millions will die initially but billions will starve or die from infection. Very few will survive a nuclear winter and the world as we know it will end.
None will survive nuclear winter. Withought sunlight, all life dies. That means corn. That means grass. That means wheat, and cows, and rabbits. With nothing to eat, and nothing growing, it doesn't matter if you survive for five years after the blasts, everything dies.
Don't worry about Russians or Eastern Europe.We will survive.
I'd worry more about the urbanites who have no concept of wilderness.
Humans have survived super volcanic eruptions that block out sunlight for years. They've also survived comet impacts in the distant past that struck with all the force of our current nuclear arsenal combined. Humans will survive, but current civilization will likely be wiped cleaned.
If you want to preserve fertile lands here then you won't find much thanks to the Kirchner kikes going for the soy meme.
Which of those things blanketed the earth with deadly radiation
Conventional war, I put it at 8 million and 10 million non-war directly related deaths and 13 million injured.
Nuclear war no clue.
Serious question. Where are the pictures of said underground shelters? Video? Proof?
Maybe I've read it wrong as it has been a while but doesn't most of the radiation get connverted from gamma rays to comptom electrons and move along earth's magnetic field lines? I don't think those high altitude nuke produce much fallout, the radioactive material is consumed in space and the radiation is converted as it hits earths upper atmosphere?
I mean you wouldn't expect a solar flare to produce lots of fallout would you? Sure it would create an Aurora though… That being said though the tests carried out by the USA of high altitudes dispersed Carbon 14 throughout the atmosphere such that the dates of those tests are used to determine the age of people and wine and such…
smithsonianmag.com
I don't think letting off 200 high altitude nukes would be that bad apart from just massively raising cancer incidence for the next 200-300 years. 200 1-2 megaton yield nukes should be easily enough to wipe out comms of Russia and the USA and knock out pretty much every satellite in orbit. Life expectancy would drop anyway so it probably wouldn't be the biggest deal.
Apocalypse-ism is pushed by Jews. (Coincidentally there're freemasons active around here.)
Yes, but it is a circular argument. Even assuming that the first nukes would be high altitude emp types, it would escalate. If a high altitude emp could disable a nation's nuclear capabilities then we wouldn't have had the first cold war.
Say for instance Russia preempted us by launching an emp attack. What would happen then? Our government and media would say that Russia started it by going nuclear first, and we would unload on them. Or vice versa.
What I am saying is that any use of nuclear weapons will further and further lower the threshold and neither side will give in as long as they have nukes left. If either side would, they would be admitting defeat, essentially forever as the victor would immediately sieze control of the other's arsenal.
Basically, MAD.
Well it was only the USA which really followed the idea of MAD, the soviets believed in strategic nukes followed by not losing a conventional war. That point aside though I think a NUTS outcome is more likely but as we have not had a nuclear war yet it is hard to be certain of anything.
MAD in any case is just a political concept to cut costs, the main point of nuclear weapons in most cases is simply not to use them too however.
If there is a nuclear exchange though it is more likely to be over the period of months rather than being very short.
Russia and the USA going to war won't really happen as everybody loses, they will just subvert the population of each other. There isn't any real ideological reason for them to dislike each other anymore apart from cold war grudges. I think a Russian economic collapse or an American civil war is more likely than an actual war between those powers.
I don't see that happening unless it's a tactical deployment with low yields on a local battlefield. The moment a ICBM is launched towards any city or crucial infrastructure of any nuclear power, it'll be an immediate swarm of launches as expected. Unless you're referring to second and third strikes, as they attempt to salvage the remaining undamaged warheads to launch.
Well I agree and disagree with a lot of that.
I agree that the idea of MAD is to just not use nukes, because everybody loses. That has been working for a long time, and it is the reason you and I are even alive today.
Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a position in which one side is pushing it as hard as they can. That is the U.S. antagonizing russia, and basically pushing for war. Why they are doing this, one can only speculate. The outcome is as obvious as it is bleak. The motivations, however, you should at least have a basic grasp on, just because you are here.
It is no secret that the American government, and in fact most of the western governments, are hell bent on globalization. Russia is not only a roadblock to this goal, but they are actively aligning themselves against it by allying with any government that resists globalization, hence the proxy war in Syria.
Now I agree that an economic collapse or an American civil war is more likely (and more benificial to mankind) but the point of the thread is hypothesizing what would happen in the event of WWIII. I.E. what will most likely hapen if Clinton wins and continues the globalist antagonization of Russia.
I disagree with the idea that a nuclear exchange would happen over the course of months. I tend to think it would all happen in a flash. Our leaders are a bunch of hotheads and will not wait around to see what the enemy will do, they will act quickly (from their bunkers) to try and gain the upper hand over the "enemy."
I am of the opinion that once the first nuke is sent, we are all royally fucked, unless a miracle happens.
I have also been convinced, however, to place my faith in Chaos and operate under the assumption that somehing wholly unforseen could happen and change everything, because I have wittnessed some mighty fine dubs in my time.
The use of nukes depends on how well you believe you won't be affected by nukes. In the 1960s, you can assume that generals and high level politicians considered losing the majority of the US population as a loss. At this point can you consider that the US government does not care about the majority of the US population?
If it thinks that hiding away in a bunker/DUMB/etc is a better alternative to losing control and power, there's not much of a reason to losing control, as long as your bunkers are cozy, self sufficient and has the resources necessary to continue some purposeful existence through R&D and organizing things on the surface as best as you can. So it depends on how good ours are which you can only speculate at.
Nothing against you, user, but I am getting tired of making this circular argument.
NUCLEAR WAR LEADS TO NUCLEAR WINTER, AND NO ONE SURVIVES NUCLEAR WINTER
It does not matter how strong your bunker is, or how long you can survive in it, if you eventually have to emerge onto a barren, lethally irradiated wasteland.
A bit below 6 billion.
World War III would inevitably go nuclear. Global nuclear war would kill off most life on the planet within a few years.
Welcome to the thread, read ten posts up
Surface radiation would be gone within 5 years, you've been playing too much fallout.
This is hopefully what happens if Trump doesn't win. It would be great of all the jew and shitskin centrals in the West got nuked.
Ah, this thread reminds me of the good old days in the cold war. Mutually assured destruction. The all pervading sense of hopelessness and inevitability. The four minute warning that could come at anytime. Protect and Survive. CND shitlibs everywhere shilling unilateral nuclear disarmament while their masters rubbed their hands in the Kremlin.
Then it all ended after Chernobyl turned Pripyat into a barren, lethally irradiated wasteland.
If you can find it watch "Threads", the 1984 BBC nuclear war drama set in Sheffield, England. Pisses all over that "The Day After" bollocks. It also answers some of the questions about survivability and casualties.
I dont play vidya. Assuming there is a cloud of nuclear ash hanging in the atmosphere, and assuming that, as you say, all ground radiation is gone within five years, what happens when you emerge from your bunker (after five years.)
All life is dead from extreme radiation (but only for five years) and lack of sunlight. How is your world any better.
ezpz
The estimation is a giant variable:
20 Million - 3.5 Billion
The number could be as high as 4.1 Billion if nukes came to play on every continent except south America and Antarctica.
The spots that would survive in NA?
Canadian North above the boarder cities/towns
Northern Maine
80% of upstate NY, all of Vermont but Burlington area, and northern NH
Northern wisconsin, minnesota, michigan, and most of South Dakota/Iowa/Wyoming- plains states wouldn't be hit except for the air force bases
Western Washinton/Oregon/Idaho
Scattered areas from the Ozarks to Appalachia
Everything else, in a 500-5000 nuke prediction stike would decimate the country and NA.
But here is the most important thing to understand-
EVEN 12 CRITICAL NUKES WOULD CAUSE THE COLLAPSE OF THE USA
Those cities getting nuked would cause so much social unrest, it would end the war
Russia would need double that amount to fall from unrest, and the fallout would rape Europe.
6 billion
Humans can deal with a level of radiation. How many nukes do you need to create a continent wide firestorm?
Thousands of white people will die, just as planned
And after 25 years it would be manageable, 100 years to be safe. Both manageable with the kinds of bases you can build with machines like this
(checked)
I don't think you know about radiation
The first 9 hours are the most deadly after a blast. The next 49 hours are when the contamination factors are high,
Relevant to thread discussion:
voxday .blogspot.com/2016/10/game-theory-and-putins-gamble.html
Try, after 5-10 days depending on the Geo-ecological climate. If you can sit in a fallout shelter for at LEAST 1 week to 2 weeks. You're not going to die from radiation poisoning.
As long as you have as much anti-contamination layers as possible between you and the outside world.
He's talking about nuclear winter which would last much longer than the effects of radiation.
That's fringe tier theory.
The only way to end a war with America would be to plant nukes for systematic usage. OR wait until 2018/20 when their SAM system would be capable of blocking a majority of the counter attack, if any.
Only a handful, in the right places, to create enough ash to block out the sun for generations. More than enough to kill all life in the Amazon rainforest, widely held to be the lungs of the planet.
Because knowing what we do about human nature, it is perfectly reasonable to expect large quantities of us to survive for a century in confined quarters with limited resources. We can all just ride our unicorns into the fairylands where pickles and doughnuts grow on trees!
was meant for
This isn't going to happen. As long as I'm alive there is no way another war with europeans killing europeans will happen. Id rather die than let it happen.
Who's we nigger? The people in US DUMBs are all military or military related personnel (aka people raised in military families). These aren't scrubs that are going to start chimping out because they're claustrophobic. If you act of line in a hypothetical place like that, you're killed. Our rule of law and the comforts we enjoy as citizens don't apply in this situation.
Though great goalpost shifting, you admit that if someone's bunkers are well made enough, and they would rather live in these bunkers than lose control, there would be no reason to not start a nuclear war if there were no other options?
People think they can survive "innawoods" hunting deer in the event of nuclear war but what happens after all of the deer starve after the vegetation they eat wilts?
out of line rather
Not sure what the rambling in the first paragraph was, but to the point on bunkers, what i am saying is that they are ultimately pointless. Bunkers cant keep you alive forever. Eventually you have to come out, and whem you do, everything will be dead. If you are trying to dissect my argument, you are thinking to hard.
IN NUCLEAR WAR, WE ALL DIE.
I forgot to mention that
Philadelpha
Baton Rogue
St. Louis
SLC
Portland
Nashville
Charlotte
are other main targets that could/would be added for prosperity.
The surface would be perfectly inhabitable 25 years after a nuclear exchange accounting for nuclear winter.
The surface would be perfectly inhabitable a few years after a nuclear exchange if nuclear winter is a meme.
If you make a good bunker, you do not die in a nuclear exchange.
They absolutely are devastating in highly urban areas that we're living in now. If it happened pre-1950 it wouldn't have much of an effect.
That's where the genius of Russia nuking our fertile land would come into effect, if that is true and not conspiracy, which it might be. Starvation is the fastest method for mass murder since the dawn of man. Ukrainians are familiar with losing 1/6th of their population in one year from forced starvation. ONE YEAR
So if you make a good bunker, all vegetative life on the planet will survive without sunlight for 25+ years? Nigger, what are you thinking
that's not true…
The meme of that people just die near a blast area isn't true at all. Unless we're talking about 5k-10k NEUTRON BOMBS per country over the greatest population centers.
Neutron bombs are anti-personelle compared to Gamma radiation and Alpha/Beta rads.
Source: I've researched these theories for over 5 years and wrote a book about how to survive a nuclear war.
This is pretty accurate.
Looks like the dude weed folks are going to be those with power in areas where there's limited to no nuclear radiation exposure but nuclear winter.
What part of plant life on the surface dying means that the land is inhabitable? If you want to grow things again, you bring seeds into the bunker.
Well you didnt research nuclear ash clouding the atmosphere for generations i guess. And before you say that wouldnt happen, read at least part of the thread, where i made the argument that any nuclear nation could specifically target forested areas of the boreal forest belt in order to do so.
Whoops, meant to add:
The priority targets are NOT the reserves and fresh water sources, or basically rural sustaining/land
It's extremely likely that those areas would be where people went to live on.
That's inaccurate. Where did you get your education?
Only 500-5000 nukes would be capable of striking the USA. The theorists have proved that wildlife and humans would just 'die off' from such an event.
Oh god…. You mean contaminated dust/soil?
You are right, sir. I stand corrected. Ease invite me into the bunker you have prepared for enough humans to maintain biogenetic diversity and enough plant seeds to create an entire geneticslly stable environment to provide life for our masive reemerging species.
I'll pull my own weight, promise.
Fuck this ergonomic keyboard :-/
Wouldn't**
Also,
read
Don't worry, they will sing songs of this day, just like in the Vedas.
Sounds like you are relying on the educations of "theorists." Where did you get your education, oh superior one?
Seeds are life.
...
WWIII is actually going to be great.
It'll start before Trump gets in office.
Most of the world's nuclear arsenal will be used up by the time Trump gets in office, the world will turn into a free-for-all, USA will annex Canada and partition Mexico, Russia will take back the Imperial borders, China will dissolve into warring states and grorrrious Kim Jung "The eel" will become king of the gooks and create Greater Korea, Taiwan will take South China, India will split into pre-colonial sized states, Persia will eliminate the arabs and create a Greater Persian Empire, Europe will turn into a COMPLETE shitshow with every country wanting a slice of the pie but unlike WWII nobody will give enough fucks to interfere.
The world is going to turn back into the glorious steaming pile of shit it was before WWII, and it's going to be great.
Hydroponics would be good in a situation, but again, not a cure if the power grid is wiped out, water polluted, people dead to maintain such systems, and when you have a population of tens or hundreds of millions of people.
It would be an Adam and Eve level event where a fraction of people would survive with modern technology.
8 years US navy working with nuclear power
:^)
Went on to write a book covering how to survive the event of such an attack. Theorists AKA Game Theorists that work in the gubmint/military. No, not just some jarheads and zoomies either. Guys who are paid to study, research, go over every possibility. Then attempt to create counters to possible attacks.
I'm talking about areas that aren't nuked, or areas pointed out here.
...
It would take at least 10% of the total global nuclear arsenal successfully impacting in order to create nuclear winter, which would last at most 40 years. Most nuclear missiles will be deflected or destroyed before impact, no more than 5% will impact. There would be large loss of human life but other than radiation it wouldn't be that bad.
Nuclear winter is a complete meme.
If nuclear war happens get up into the mountains because the nuclear winds will radiate your ass
We wouldn't all die, but due to the atmospheric effects, those exiting bunkers after 30 days would have to have eye protection. After 30 days is the approximate safe time to leave a shelter for brief 30 minute scavenging (any longer runs radiation risks.)
If nuclear winter did happen, food would have to be grown inside assuming power can be generated to keep a heat lamp on.
Grass is a hearty species of plant and would likely grow easily in a post nuclear world. Growing it for post nuclear livestock would be simple enough.
For what it's worth, I believe nuclear war would also set us back into the 1890s only basic electricals would would work due to the EMP blast. Some machinery may also work, such as tractors built before 1950 and certain gas motor vehicles.
Radio technology and any communication tech at all would be of military value if any military remains, and technology as a whole would be extremely valuable even something as basic as a calculator.
If you want to be prepared for the EMP blast look up how to make a faraday cage and toss your batteries and sensitive instruments in there (you'll look fucking paranoid, but at least you'll have your vibrator or whatnot.
Wow, well you are way more qualified than I am. Tell us then, please no bully how do we survive nuclear winter?
Think of a nuclear blast as someone piling invisible trash over an area… the smell from the trash is radiation. The trash is contamination from the blast.
Stay away from the trash = you live
the smell AKA radiation can only move from things that are contaminated. The AIR cannot be contaminated. Doesn't work like that.
Water, dust, dirt… those are things that can be contaminated with the trash causing radiation.
Nuclear winter would last 3 to 4 years, IF a majority of ALL the nuked were launched over ALL of the inhabited world.
Even plant life/wildlife would survive far better than humans would.
Right, but the dust that is contaminated is blown with the air, and dust exists up to relatively high elevations. There's a reason the jews put their bunkers up in the mountains.
Dude did You know that somehow for some reason jews didnt show up for work on the twin towers on 9/11?
Yes but assuming that food could be grown inside indefinitely is dubious at best. The generators/solar panels required do not last indefinitely. And while I will agree thst grass is a hardy plant, the only reason we have livestock today is because grass grows plentifully. What would we do if any of those systems are not as readily available as you think?
How steampunk with ARs, Sigs and HKs? Sign me the fuck up.
Okay… Here we go:
Want to survive? It's not ezpz
3 main factors for survival.
TIME Like I said before, the first 9 hours to 49 hours are by far, the worst for being contaminated through dust/water… after that. It drops dramatically.
DISTANCE Stay away from anything that would/could be contaminated. The closer you get, the more radiation from the contaminated things. Increasing the variables of getting contaminated yourself.
SHIELDING Protect your body with layers. Strip the layers carefully afterwards, and cleanse your body with FRESH water if you can do so. Even trash bags work as well as any Chemical suit would (which are basically the same as radiation suits)
Now, one thing I didn't mention. Is the chance to get cancer by living near these regions afterward. Which does INCREASE. Not by insane amounts.
Dude did you know that 9/11 was pretty sloppy and that you don't have room for error like that in keeping a nuclear strike a secret?
It would be better to go underground. Not even too far.
However, far up in the mountains in certain regions would be just as safe for sure.
I'm pretty sure there is no possibility of radiation at 10,000 feet right?
Better point them at America too if you really want to wipe out das juden.
Thanks for the info, user. Not to be problematic and troll you XD but could you provide a timestamp with your credentials, so that we kno we are getting good info from a reliable source?
MY OPPONENT GOVERNOR ROMNEY SAID RUSSIA'S A MAJOR GEOPOLITICAL THREAT
THE 1980s CALLED, GOVERNOR
THEY WANT THEIR FOREIGN POLICY BACK
The best I could do right now, is a part from my book.
"The only way to reduce radiation exposure is … Time" He spoke while turning around he check the attention in the room. "Time, which is 'Less time smelling trash', so to speak."
"Distance, which is 'Staying away from the radioactive trash', and Shielding, which really is, 'Putting something between you and the trash'. He spun around to meet everyone's eyes with his silence gaze. “These three things are key elements when dealing with radiation."
is there any way to estimate how much pressure is built up in the caldera? could a nuke even penetrate it?
I recently downloaded a PDF that is a state by state survival book, in it they have a map of the places that will be targeted by nukes, the place i live has a military base so it was bright red with multiple strikes.
I just hope it happens fast.
Literally at my ladies place rn. I have a copy online on the cloud.
"Radiation suits saving lives? Excuse me sir but that is a myth. Something that will protect you from high levels of radiation, doesn't exist. Never has."
Link?
On the other hand, if shillary wins, i have lost all hope.
I welcome a nuke or epidemic, the world the globalists want, im not interested in that
Umm, before I go.
The areas of IMMEDIATE destruction would be, 250-300 miles around yellowstone.
Hot ash spreading from western washington/Oregon down to Nebraska and to Minnesota.
More ash as far as Texas, California, and Illinois.
The ash after that would depend on what time of year. Would be worse for the nation if it happened March/April
If a megaton nuke were detonated on the surface of Yellowstone (not an air-blast) it could potentially FUCK THE SHIT UP, if the blast triggered an eruption of Yellowstone half the world would be covered in ash and Japan to Europe would all be winter for months. Would fuck the food supply, poison the water, just fuck my shit up.
It wont let me post the pdf but its called risks and hazards a state by state guide.
Last post before I go (ill check back tonight)
Don't believe the meme of nuclear war.
It's much more likely that any kind of nuclear war would just be NON AIR-to-SURFACE missiles. But devices that would be planted and used in key strategic/economic locations.
If Russia nukes the USA
If USA nuked Russia
The rest of the world wouldn't just be say… "cool beans" unless it was during an already deadly world war.
Yes. That's a popular theory among projectionists.
Yellowstone would be like hitting a 100 ton stack of explosives behind your enemy with an RPG.
...
IIRC, you could decimate everything downstream from South Dakota by nuking Pierre and conventionally bombing the dam that has made Lake Oahe. That's a good 200 miles of irradiated water that is now freely flowing down the Missouri.
Yeah it'll probably just be a limited thermonuclear engagement in the ME followed by conventional war followed by civil wars everywhere followed by glorious fascist revolutions.
PUTIN PLEASE THIS
though flyover states would be the first innocent casualties IMO it still worth the salvation of the White race
I saw the spread map and instantly remembered this map. Just a visual to ponder.
It would give us a good excuse to annex Canada and partition Mexico.
Guess Ben Garisson can't be dealt with by a simple handful of nukes.
...
Great bit of observation there, friendo.
4 to 5 billion dead, the rest injured.
I was mainly looking at the 500 scenario, don't know how survivable that'd be but it'd be literal targeted radiation therapy. Most of the people who'd vote for the old crow trying to take us to this point would be the first to perish.
If you really wanted to fuck america you blow up the hoover dam
science.howstuffworks.com
As the water released by the Hoover Dam moved through these two lakes, it would likely destroy them and their dams as well. That's where the real impact would be felt, because these lakes affect a huge number of people. The water in them produces hydroelectric power, irrigates farmland and supplies drinking water to cities like Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix and San Diego.
The Hoover dam produces roughly 2,000 megawatts of power. Davis and Parker dams produce less, but together they might all produce 3,000 megawatts. That represents about one half of one percent of the total electrical power produced in the United States. If you eliminated a sizable amount of generating capacity like that, especially in that area of the country (near Los Angeles and Las Vegas, for example), it would definitely cause problems.
The destruction of irrigation water supplies would also have a huge effect on farming in the region. Farmers in the Imperial Valley get most of their water from the Colorado River, and these irrigation systems would collapse. Prior to irrigation, the Imperial Valley was a barren desert. Today it is the home of more than half a million acres of farmland and produces more than a billion dollars in fruits and vegetables every year.
There would be large effects as well from the loss of drinking water. For example, Las Vegas gets 85 percent of its drinking water from Lake Mead – the lake behind Hoover dam. With the loss of water and the loss of power, Las Vegas would become uninhabitable, and that would displace 1.5 million residents and empty more than 120,000 hotels rooms and the casinos, bringing the multi-billion-dollar gambling industry in this city to a halt.
Honestly 100 trained men could take down the infrastructure of most of the country in a week after the nukes hit.
It would be hilariously easy for a country to send operatives in and have them blow major bridges, sabotage power grids, and generally fuck shit up.
so probably the best place to live to not get nuked is idaho, just avoid boise
Wonder if the US also predominantly targets chechen and turkic infested areas.
The USA would nuke China as well so they don´t take over the world. Probably neighboring countries too so that the Chinese doesn´t take over them to rebuild.
Faced with stravation, the Hindus would simply take whatever food moslems have both within India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Maybe even eat them in some states.
An unharmed Britain would suffer mass-starvation when the global economy collapses, Italy and Greece might follow.
The end of AIDS medication alone would kill tens of millions of blacks. Every back country would progressively fall into a cycle of warlordism, mass starvation, diseases and so on.
Mexican economy collapses, mass starvation and civil war there too, followed by diseases, possibly a military coup and warlordism .
Not true if they shoot Yellowstone.
Maine is probably the best, since the radiation won't affect you because you're north of all the nukes.
In a full nuclear scenario, Russia can glass Burgerclaps within 25 minutes with a survival rate of 1-2% (and these will be elites in hiding, given there will be a build up to the war and people located in the impact 'black holes'). There is no technology on this planet which can prevent any of Russias Tier 1 nukes to impact (mix of MARV and Layner-1 transitional phases).
The scenario of Burgers nuking Russia at the same time is a bit different. The US doesn't have any good terminal guidance technology and thus rely on hurling all their shit at the same time to 'overload' terminal defenses, which mostly consist of s-300 and s-500 grids (latter one is 20x more capable than aegis or THAAD or the anti-terminal laser employed by navy and some stationary land defenses). Burgerclaps will only manage to wipeout 60% of Russians due to Russia's geology and big landmass. Additionally, Russians are more self-reliant compared to most Burgers who LARP some zombie prepping or go make camp fires innnawoods with their plastic rifle toys.
As for the rest of the world: Brits and France can't do much shit, especially France. Brits can help Burgers with delivering some additional payloads onto Russkies. 80% of Africa will die out due to lack of aid from whitey. They will do what they always do: massacre each other until a king nigger rises, then massacre each other more for a bit, then repeat.
Remaining factors are China, India, Pakistan and Shekellords. China can glass the US as well, although their Nukes aren't as sophisticated as the russian ones and 30% of their shit will be taken down pre-terminal stage. Same goes for india and pakistan, but they capabilities are even lower (almost on baguette level).
Jews will probably glass everything around them and spare a few honorary nukes for Germany, using the very same submarines germany had to build for Israel for FREE as a token of holohoax.
Full blown nuclear war and the aftermath is pretty exciting, as it creates a new chance to start over, because if Burgers are gone, the Jew's biggest ally and enabler will be gone, too, and only Britbongs will remain as Jewish executioners. Still, the immediate conventional war following the nuke trade will be great and new power structures can be born out of this, because it is almost certain that every "progressive western democracy" can't win a conventional war because they became pussies and too reliant on modern gadgets.
Welfare.
There would not be any welfare system obviously, many of them haven´t worked for generations and suddenly have to struggle to survive.
There won´t be any US federal governement to punish armed resistance to dindu rampage and the cucks would perish quickly.
It would basically be the beginning of Rahowa, there would be nothing to stop the dindus, but there would be nothing to stop full-on genocide.
at least 7 billion
The Europoor posting this doesn't know shit about rural Americans.
Slavs can only get you that far you know. We need someone to smoke (((the elites))) out of their bunkers.
Could we not just do war as-if and Chindia goes boom? Then we use our arsenal on Afrika and MENA and give the land to Israel. For free and gratis. No probs, you can have Africa, the now bright continent.
...
that's 2+ warheads per silo groundburst
Counterforce attack
all the dense packed areas are Minuteman III sites
the future looks bright.
better stock up on really dark sunglasses lads
Nuclear winter was essentially a meme pushed by Carl (((Sagan))) of fedora fame.
They say roaches can survive nuclear fallout.
Yes goys, it's hnuclear. You might also consider taking your own life if you don't want to go through the hnuclear suffering after the ((government)) announces that nooks have hit your area. Remember, nukes are real. But you will die in good mood because you know that neither the elites are gonna survive this nuclear, promise.
...
Watch out, kike elites are buying property there to keep their shit up on you all. If shit gets real, you all are going to have to remove them with extreme prejudice. Tell others that its the traitorous "media assholes" responsible for the American treachery to prevent any blue pilled sheep from stopping you all.
This was the plan during the Cold War. Even China and Yugoslavia, though friendly with the US, would have been nuked.
Got any sources on the relative effectiveness of nuke attacks by US and Russia? Seems like conjecture. I'm not sure any state could survive nuclear war, even if some of its population does.
All true brother… come to the south and live with the remaining whites.
Just said this to some lefty people I have the misfortune to have to deal with… they just laugh and call me a fear monger.. hell I even got called CIS scum not to long ago… this shit is getting out of hand.
But I have my property setup and a good community of red pilled whites around me down here so we will stand strong.
I think he meant stuff like submarine-launched anti-ship nuclear missiles, nuclear-tipped torpedoes and so on. The USA allegedly got rid of all that tactical weaponry, while Russia… who knows. Their Oscar-class submarines can be fitted with all kind of nuclear goodies short of actual SLBMs, and a single Oscar armed with that shit can erase a carrier battle group.
NZ farmer here, good to see some other lads from NZ here, if the world doesnt spill over into war, our land rights are being shanked to the days, a water plan for some enviromental shit is going to take away our right to use our land for anything except for what it already is being used for, huge parts of our land near water ways are to be fenced off and massive fines will come our way if its not up to par. i don't know if this is for other regions but in the waikato this will be so. My town is largely mostly maoris and white blue pill degenerates, not much hope for them, we farmers on the other hand are more prepared. stay strong lads, we may also be south bound in not too long if this keeps up.
How does it feel to host all the traitors in the future when SHTF? I hope you gonna murder them with your commando sheep user.
USA is going lose more allies in the future.
I ctrl+f'd for Threads, and I will assure anonymous that is worth watching.
Spoiler alert: the answer to every question is "no", and all of your Fallout/Mad Max innabunker scenarios are fairy tale optimism.
You got blown the fuck out in the other thread, don't even bother here mate.
My bad, it was this thread that you got blown the fuck out.
...
If we cut off aid the population of Africa would probably fall back to pre-1950 levels. Approx 1 billion down to 200 mil, so more like 80% would die. This would only take 1 year, 2 at the most.
A similar die off would probably happen if we cut niggers off from white man's aid in the US.
US population would fall to around half of what it is if we crashed the grid.
Wouldn't they just eat the human instead?
Some would.
The survivors would be pretty scary.
I think you're forgetting the ultimate Meta; Long Pork.
The Russians know this
youtube.com
Translation:
I know 1960s/1970s McDonald's often had a basement with a birthday party room but modern McDonald's rarely seem to have basements at all.
they're all israeli user
If there's a secret underground bunker system in the US, it's based around Walmarts, not McDonalds. Though I would doubt every Walmart would be "in on it" like this guy claims. He assumes that the US government cares about its people so much that it would bother to do something like this.
That's basically an old troll video from old RuNet.
Watch the video. The editing makes it pretty believable.
I'm trying to picture a "McDonald's Birthday Basement" but all I'm getting is pedo rape dungeon.
It's a decent conspiracy theory given how fast McDonalds went up in the old commie bloc.
Yeah, they were pretty dreary windowless rooms that could probably serve as "better than nothing" bunkers in a pinch if you had nowhere else to run to but I don't think they were specially designed as such (i.e. they're nowhere near deep enough).
It wasn't particularly pedo, though… parents were in the room and the McDonald's employees that I remember at these things were usually teenagers.
But the era when kids in my family were having McDonald's parties was early through mid-1980s, before most McDonald's (at least in my area) had the playrooms on the surface where, I assume, birthday parties are held now.
no more brother wars
Great short story, mate. Are the Pakis still running a train on your mom?
Decent analysis, though. 10/10 would definitely LARP it.
What about nuclear reactors? If only a bunch blow up during the nuke exchange, wouldn't the effects be catastrophic?
Nuclear reactors have half a shitton of fail safe mechanisms. Little odds of a nuclear explosion taking the uranium to critical mass without those kicking in.
Fixed that for you, physically impossible to bring nuclear reactors super critical.
Russians are our friends. Don't let any fuckwit tell you different.
"Waaa! they won't let us coup Syria and replace it with a terrorist hotbed for the next 100 years!!! WAAAAA!!!!!"
"They chased out all the Oligarchs!!! WAAAAA!!!!"
Who do you think is behind this. You should know simply by the fact that your hearing it.
This is stupid old Cold WAr thinking, there won't be any 3rd World War, in the age of internet there's no need for fucking nuking entire planet to prove a point. Jesus, don't waste your time on threads like this one, prep for something more plausible like regular SHTF scenario and eat quality food till you still can Holla Forums
The dub confirms.
Over 6 hecadupillion oy veyyy
I am of the disagreeings. War is coming my good shill.
...
But not a nuclear one, that's just delusional. Wars come and go like year seasons, didn't disagree with that
Thanks brother and keep fighting as the whites of this nation are in fact slowly waking up…. We have to pay lip service to the PC crowed but that in no way means we all agree… When the SHTF these PC cucks will roll over and die quicker than shit through a goose.
On the environmental end of things you can't so much as build a fucking deck chair without some smelly hippie green voter complaining… Day of the rope cant come soon enough.
I can assure you that these people have really underestimated this nation and the people here.
It will be most enjoyable to watch them all swing from trees.
luckily our borders are so wide open that enemy countries no longer have to send their deepcover agents to live here for years, they can now literally hop border, blow shit up, and hop back over border
ITT: we estimate the survivors. I claim 500 000.
500 000 000*
It'll be this.
Commonwealth countries are a joke, and Sweden-tier. At least you're not Canada or britainistan, but in reality that just means your the crowning dungball on a pile of shit.
In an all-out nuclear war, I expect no more than 20% of casualties to be from the bombs. 80% will come from the post-war breakdown of law and order, infrastructure, starvation, disease, and related strife.
North America, Russia and Europe will each lose 2/3, over half a billion all told
Africa, the Middle East, and India will implode (assuming they aren't directly involved), resulting in another billion deaths (at least)
China will sit it out
If the Norks do something, then theyll get BTFO but that's about 10-20 million koreans dead plus millions more honoraryans dead depending on how many missiles reach Japan.
I'm 30 and I can back that up. I feel so mentally exhausted and frustrated. There isn't a day that goes by that I think "we don't have a place to fall back on…" except the countryside, pockets of places in our homelands.
A hard global winter that lasts for decades would be the only thing that could make whitey go into survival mode yet again while the other savages kill each other or starve. We'd lose a lot of our own, but in the end, white people would again emerge from an ice age as the smartest, and well equipped while the mud people are where they belong- in the stone ages.
They won't be able to use white peoples inventions and luxuries for more than 1 generations without anyone to show them what to do.
IT'S FUCKING DECON 3
All of the remaining 1.3 billion white people probably.
Wisconsin will be hit because of Oshkosh Defense corp. They currently make the MRAP for the military and a few miles north of them is Pierce Manufacturing who makes many different types of emergency vehicles
Oshkosh Defense is a target for terrorism and it's been confirmed to have been scouted by jihadists more than once.
Also forgot to mention Fort McCoy is a drone operator base and there is a ELF radio station in northern Wisconsin. ELF radio is used to communicate with submarines.
Zero. Because it won't happen with Trump in office shutting down Shillary and Obongo's bullshit.
Metro irl?
Who would lead this "New World Government"?
Why the fuck don't we have fallout shelters for 40 million people?
Oh right, we're ruled by the kikes and they see us as no more than cattle.
...
Oh good
Fucking bullshit. Your post betrays so much ignorance on military and geopolitical matters, it hurts. Please get a good grounding first on the respective capabilities of the time period, than come back.
We know where you live, Greg.