I'm sure any maths autists will tell you, the nuclear fallout scenario is actually totally unrealistic simply because even assuming there are some extra secret systems in place we don't know about there's only so many bombs in the world. You're only truly fucked if you're dumb enough to stay in the cities permanently and even then it has to be a major one of importance.
They'd target the military bases first, then government complexes, then major districts. After that it's simply doing a radius calculation for the highest yield bombs and you'll probably be quite surprised at the results. Even in a worse case scenario they can't bomb everywhere and they might likely end up taking each other out before they can divert attention elsewhere. So basically somewhere like New York or Washington will of course turn to dust, but if you're some farmer in Oklahoma you probably won't even notice.
good news. fusion (hydrogen) bombs produce very very little radioactive fallout. in fact, much of the improvements to our nuclear arms has been making them more efficient, so that most of the nuclear material undergoes fusion and is not blasted out into the atmosphere as (relatively) long half-life fallout.
In addition, nuclear weapons are now designed to air-burst at an altitude that avoids irradiating nearly as much dirt and debris and blasting it up into the air to be spread. The higher-altitude burst actually kills and destroys more while avoiding as much nuclear fallout. This irradiated material is much less dangerous that "un-fused" nuclear material, and it's radioactive properties last less than a month.
so yeah. don't live near air bases and population centers and you'll have a reasonable shot at living.
the nuclear fallout scenario is actually totally unrealistic
Depends on the bomb. Two Colbat-60 nukes would be enough to kill everything on the planet if set off in the right places because they're intentional "dirty bombs" designed with at least 60 years of fallout as the purpose rather than the consequence.
Fair point, though that scenario relies on the idea that anyone would go along with a dirty bomb being set off in the first place if push comes to shove. I don't necessarily believe in the concept of white hats in government anymore but purely out of self-interest and staying alive you might see civil strife if the elites were dumb enough to try and kick something like that off. They would also have to be competent enough to set it all off in the right way in such a scenario and other nations might kill them before they do any harm.
They'd target the military bases first, then government complexes, then major districts.
The muzzies? The Shiites want to cause destruction to usher in their messiah, they'd might target major population centers before military targets. Sunnis seem more level-headed, but I still wouldn't bank on logic reigning should the sort in Europe get nukes.
I'm sure any maths autists will tell you, the nuclear fallout scenario is actually totally unrealistic simply because even assuming there are some extra secret systems in place we don't know about there's only so many bombs in the world. You're only truly fucked if you're dumb enough to stay in the cities permanently and even then it has to be a major one of importance.
They'd target the military bases first, then government complexes, then major districts. After that it's simply doing a radius calculation for the highest yield bombs and you'll probably be quite surprised at the results. Even in a worse case scenario they can't bomb everywhere and they might likely end up taking each other out before they can divert attention elsewhere. So basically somewhere like New York or Washington will of course turn to dust, but if you're some farmer in Oklahoma you probably won't even notice.
Holy shit wouldn't that be something? World Peace in our time.
good news. fusion (hydrogen) bombs produce very very little radioactive fallout. in fact, much of the improvements to our nuclear arms has been making them more efficient, so that most of the nuclear material undergoes fusion and is not blasted out into the atmosphere as (relatively) long half-life fallout.
In addition, nuclear weapons are now designed to air-burst at an altitude that avoids irradiating nearly as much dirt and debris and blasting it up into the air to be spread. The higher-altitude burst actually kills and destroys more while avoiding as much nuclear fallout. This irradiated material is much less dangerous that "un-fused" nuclear material, and it's radioactive properties last less than a month.
so yeah. don't live near air bases and population centers and you'll have a reasonable shot at living.
Depends on the bomb. Two Colbat-60 nukes would be enough to kill everything on the planet if set off in the right places because they're intentional "dirty bombs" designed with at least 60 years of fallout as the purpose rather than the consequence.
Fair point, though that scenario relies on the idea that anyone would go along with a dirty bomb being set off in the first place if push comes to shove. I don't necessarily believe in the concept of white hats in government anymore but purely out of self-interest and staying alive you might see civil strife if the elites were dumb enough to try and kick something like that off. They would also have to be competent enough to set it all off in the right way in such a scenario and other nations might kill them before they do any harm.
The muzzies? The Shiites want to cause destruction to usher in their messiah, they'd might target major population centers before military targets. Sunnis seem more level-headed, but I still wouldn't bank on logic reigning should the sort in Europe get nukes.
lets just hope someone doesnt get the bright idea of lets drop all our own nukes on one specific spot on ourheads unless we get our demands met.