Nah, thanks. I go and look for a dead soldier or policeman with a gun and do me the favour of shooting myself (I live in Germany, we usually don't own guns). Can't be bothered. I doubt humanity would survive the nuclear winter anyway, for various reasons.
its about allowing the maniacs to put us all in the situation. and why we havent all joined together to stop them. we should have killed oppenheimer and einstein at an early stage.
@anamericangypsy Yes, we do have a survival instinct, which makes crucifixion so agonizing - even knowing you're going to die and the sooner the better, you do everything to survive, regardless. True fact: the people without this survival instinct are not our ancestors. Even so, a lot of survivors will envy the dead. But they will do everything they can to survive, no matter the odds or how futile the prospect. So, it's possible to think of being better off dead while moving Heaven and earth to survive.
Growing up with a Fallout Shelter in every school I attended, this kind of hits me like a feather. Plus, my dad was in the Air Force Security Service, so I knew what would happen anyway.
@craigsheffield6546 @finscreenname That's what happens when you go bullying around the globe, until someone strong enough faces you. Karma is a bitch huh?
For the sheer bleakness and horror, watch Threads. I'm 55 and grew up with the threat of nuclear war seemingly inevitable. Threads scared the absolute crap out of me. It made Mad Max and the accompanying films seem like a holiday 😂
Yup - had to watch threads at scool - It made living through the 80's a pretty bleak prospect given the threat we lived under... Still, all we remember now is how good the music was back then.. :D
As a few other brave souls have commented about, I have seen more recent studies that have questioned the whole nuclear winter thing and have claimed that the effects have been way overstated, maybe rightly, to scare people. The studies suggest that based upon 40 years of research since the nuclear winter scenario, observations about volcanos and other disasters have shown that particulates do not stay in the atmosphere as long as feared and actually come back down fairly quickly. Maybe even weeks to a few months. Now, that is not to downplay the millions that would die in the blast zones and from fallout and other problems but rural areas might not be as bad off as feared. And if there is no, or limited nuclear winter, that would mean that most of the southern hemisphere would actually be pretty okay.
That is correct, most of the southern hemisphere would be ok and capable of growing crops. And all those people living there would gladly let everyone from the North migrate and start taking over. Or would they? And that's just one, isolated issue with the premise.
@@loopmantra8314 well, since they seem to have no problem migrating illegally to America for the last 30 years with their hands out, I think they owe us.
@@bobross1829 you think you stand a chance taking? During or shortly after nuclear holocaust? The one that wiped out most of infrastructure and army personnel? Yeah, ok buddy
The people who caused it would be safe in their bunkers until the worst of the fallout passes. So we need to remember to be waiting for them when they emerge...
That sounds fucked up, until you realize that those people get to survive in a nuclear hellscape. The true winners are the people who live in the center of impact zones.
I don't think "get" to push the button is the right word there . . . they don't want to have to live in underground bottles till the dust cools, you know.
Simon forgot to mention the global pandemic caused by all the rotting carrion lying about. Don't think about going to the hospital, the medical system collapsed because they're all dead. And to think United Nations by overwhelming majority vote banned nuclear weapons and international tax avoidance in 2017, but 1%er stonks gambling addiction is more important than survival of the human species.
*depends...when you have radioactive livestock and angry trees attacking the remnants of human civilization followed by those waves of zombies that follow afterward life would get pretty tedious*
As at least one other user has cited, I second watching a film called Threads (1984). A stark and grim look into what the reality of a nuclear apocalypse could be instead of how the Fallout series makes it out to be.
I don’t know who put this together, but as a rural living American, I’m not chasing the guy away with my shotgun. That’s good meat we’d be letting go to waste and in our new post-apocalypse world, that’s just bad manners letting a meal escape.
True, though she never adequately addressed what a total (regional) nuclear war like India vs Pakistan would be like. I think that scenario is more likely
She gives an absolute worst case scenario, not a definitive reality because there could in certain circumstance where in a regional war or if communications were open between U.S. ,NATO AND RUSSIA or CHINA to know exactly what was happening it may not go to Armageddon but any Nuclear explosions would effect everything on earth.
And if you do survive, you’re fucked. Imagine being stuck in an apocalypse with no thought on how to survive, you’ll just die of dehydration, because you won’t have the balls to off yourself. Dehydration, starvation are basically getting tortured to death by time. It’s worth training and being prepared because if you aren’t instantly killed you’ll have no choice. Either survive or die a horrendous and excruciating death.
One thing not mentioned here is the hemisphere difference. When you look at all the nuclear war scenarios the missiles are all flying in the northern hemisphere. The Southern hemisphere would be relatively untouched at least by the missiles themselves. They would still get hit by nuclear winter of course but otherwise would be okay. South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, South America. Those would be the place to be.
Thats a fallacy that has been debunked, the southern hemisphere will be in a nuclear winter for a minimum of 10-15 years... not many will survive without food production.
The dust thrown into the atmosphere would encircle the Earth. So you are looking at 25% less sunlight at the surface even in the Southern hemisphere when the sky looks clear. The Northern hemisphere would have the largest temperature drop (think polar vortex x10). Weather patterns in the Southern would mirror the north just to a lesser extent. This would cause a massive shift in the hydrosphere, meaning areas where there is lush farming and rainforest would suddenly see 50% less rain. He does not say it in this video, but in others you can find on YT they suggest most of the world's rainforests would die back 75% which now reinforces the global drought. THIS IS WHAT KILLS 5+ BILLION PEOPLE. There is no food. There is no water. There is no global trade. Most technology doesn't work anymore. He sort of touched on this at the very end, but said it was only over cities; that is wrong: After a nuclear war, all the detonations will damage the global ozone layer, which increases the amount of UV light that makes it to the surface. This will kill at least 10% of all plant life. Cancer rates will skyrocket, and so will eye damage (animals [and people] will start going blind over the next 2 years). What I did not like is that he avoided the big point: you can't hide from the radiation. While 2 weeks works for surviving the highly radioactive stuff in blast zones, the lighter, "less deadly" radiation will spread across continents and eventually encircle the earth. It's in the air. It's in the water. It's in the crops. It's in the animals. People will not die of this immediately, but globally... human lifespans will be shortened. Blood and organ cancers will rise 1000% in anyone who survived the war, no matter where they lived. And the children born after the war will also have shortened lifespans.
There was a novel called "Warday" written about the aftermath of a "limited" nuclear war. The Soviets bombed Washington DC, New York, San Antonio, and the various "Minutemen" missile silos and military bases throughout the northwest (suddenly being in a rural area doesn't sound so safe). The novel is a first person narrative of a journalist who received a high dose of radiation and 5 years after the war decides to spend his limited remaining time traveling around the US to document what has happened. It's been years, but I remember the novel being very good.
Warday is to nuclear-war novels what "Threads" is to nuclear-war movies. The best researched, the most plausible, by far the best written of any novel dealing with the subject. If you want to have a good idea of what surviving a nuclear war would be like -- at least as good an idea as you can get from fiction -- then "Threads" and Warday are an absolute must. There is nothing in fiction that will take you closer than those two works. The writing is so brilliant in Warday that when one of the authors is describing being in New York City, riding a bus, when the pattern of warheads began detonating, and especially the days to follow when he's trying to escape with his family from a dark, irradiated, lawless New York City on foot because literally EVERYTHING has quit working due to EMP, the unbelievably eerie thing about it is that if you didn't know what you were reading, and just picked up the book and opened it to that section, you'd be certain the author was describing NYC in the aftermath of 9/11. It's crazy how similar it is, and that section of the book was written probably 20 years before 9/11. Absolute brilliance.
Whitley Strieber and James Kunetka wrote this, as I recall. Extremely well written, had a very down-to-earth feel to it, and as a boomer who bought and read it way back when, I found it quite chilling. The United Kingdom basically mounts an enormous civil defence operation and , in the process, kind of re-absorbs the eastern and southern states back into the Empire.
There is a British made film from 1984 called Threads and for a time was stopped from UK people being able to see it because it was likely very truthful and disturbing. It's about a nuclear attack on Sheffield. All I can say is I wouldn't want to live through an event like that and especially after it. The after events looks far worse!!
Dad talked about the cold war and their neighbor putting in a bomb shelter. This was in the early 1960's, right before the Cuban missile crisis. Dad was 10 or 11, he still recalls that conversation between their neighbor and his dad(my grandpa). Grandpa told the man he prayed every night for peace, and if peace was not in God's will that his family suffer a quick and painless death out of this world. He didn't want them to suffer thru the hell of after the bomb. Dad said he started mocking him a bit with something along the lines of "Hell if I ain't right with Jesus, I'd rather go dance with the devil in Hell than live thru armageddon". That's some rather nihilistic shit from a man who I know had a strong religious conviction and accepted Jesus as his savior. Joking or not, I think a lot of Americans shared a similar view.
Kudos for using humor to approach this subject because honestly the only way to consider this sort of hellish scenario without running screaming for the hills is Dark Humor. Very Dark Humor. With a little sprinkle of sarcasm on top. Also, loving the new channel. 👍
Regarding the post-nuclear war environment, I always thought that the Twilight Zone episode "The Old Man in the Cave" had the most realistic conditions (sans the actual "old man in the cave"). From a book perspective, the scenario in "A Canticle for Lebowitz" did an excellent job portraying how the post-nuclear society would evolve and rebuild over a long period of time. The first vignette in that book takes place maybe 500 years after the war. Things are very much like the dark ages after the fall of the Roman empire....except with forbidden zones and mutants (the mis-born). It didn't help that the survivors were so angry in the initial aftermath of the nuclear war, that they killed all the smart people and destroyed all the books (so it could never happen again). As a result, nearly everyone was illiterate and stupid. Not sure how realistic that part was, but I think people would be very pissed and irrational for quite a while.
Probably there wouldn't be any humans left after hundred years from a nuke war. Extinction is more likely than survival. Russia could secretly have a Dooms Day device,which they haven't tested.yet. The Tsiar Bomba test of 50 megatons in the 60s, was the first step towards the Dooms Day bomb.
I don't believe that at all. I believe it would have the opposite effect actually. People wouldn't blame science. They would blame weak and selfish leaders.
Yeah that last part is pretty dumb. Most likely people would be entirely concerned with getting their immediate needs met in the aftermath and securing the things they want moving forward to worry about engineering what might happen in 1000 years.
Sticks and stones will be true by technicality, WW4 will have asteroids and kinetic projectiles from railguns. Maybe some casaba howitzers too, or directed x-Ray beams for extraterrestrial combat.
I've written a series of articles about this subject. You have covered it quite thoroughly, but there are a few facts missing - probably due to time constraints. First, not only would food be a major problem, medical treatments would also disappear. Hospitals are generally located in large metropolitan areas, and so would be the first to go. Even if a few survived, they would quickly become useless. There would be no electricity to support them, and they would quickly deplete their medical stocks - given the problems that any survivors experienced due to burns and radiation poisoning. It would be back to home remedies only - not good. Those five billion corpses you mentioned would be a MAJOR breeding ground for disease - as well as the carcasses of all other animals who died during and after the fallout. Under the circumstances you outlined, the human race would quickly revert to the Stone Age. You have to ask yourself - can you make a metal instrument such as an ax or a plow. How about clothes, can you spin thread or yarn into something to wear? What's left of humanity would be reduced to wearing skins and using stone tools to survive. What's even worse is our knowledge - all the progress we've made through the millenniums - would quickly disappear. Forever. Because of the tribalism you spoke of, language would fracture and splinter many times. It would be very difficult for the human race to exchange information under the circumstances. Even if certain books containing such knowledge did survivor, the remains of humanity would quickly lose it's understanding of it - making them worthless. Given these facts, it would take not hundreds but thousands of years for the human race to completely recover. If at all. Humanity would again face species-threatening events such as plague, famine, and everything else you could think of. Makes you want to pray "Please God, no."
Not true hill people do make cloths like the Amish do and tools most never go into towns eather but make everything they need so only the city people the woke would suffer for the most part
Curious about language fracturing. Doesn't that usually happen over centuries? I wouldn't think a few decades would cause a huge break down other than for slangs and nuances.
@@BenjaminCronce It would happen much more quickly under this circumstance, due to the fact all means of rapid communication and transportation would disappear. Even if some horses survived (doubtful) it would still be a very slow process that one pocket of survivors could have contact with another. As a result, new words and expressions unique to each pocket would come into use, while others died off. Within just few decades, enough new words would enter each group's vocabulary that someone would be needed to translate. Yes, core English would probably still be in place, but it would fade even faster with each passing year. Exchanging ideas becomes very difficult under the circumstances.
@@williamgray8104 So you're saying that only city people would suffer in such circumstances - so who cares? First, you are incredibly naïve if you think it would not affect everyone. Second, it shows that you are a heartless bastard who has no compassion for his fellow human beings.
Depends on the kind of "Nuke." Old nukes cause long term radioactivity. The newer ones cause mostly short lived radiation. Most would be airburst, so a nuclear winter is unlikely.
How high above ground level the bombs are detonated aren't the only factor. The number of detonations matters also. The scenario discussed in the video is a full out nuclear war between the US and Russia. In that scenario, with hundreds of detonations, a nuclear winter is not only likely, but guaranteed. That would last at least a decade. Most will not make it through that.
Rural areas here in the US are also the places where the military has its ground-based nuclear missile capability as well as key airbases. Chances are areas like the Dakotas will be completely destroyed by the Russians in order to neutralize those weapons and facilities. There is actually very little reason to bomb a place like New York from a military perspective.
the only military perspective would be: to kill of the population: no more man going in the army. no more woman getting babys. cause they died. so it would be very logical to nuke big metropolitan areas.
@@ChristophDeClercq-mj1pk I hate to sound like Dr. Strangelove, but that's exactly the reason for not destroying the city. New York City can't feed or power itself, and if you've bombed all the supply sources you just have one angry, hungry, scared mob of people. I lived through the blackout in the late 1970s and saw what happened to the city when the power went out. No John Carpenter movie reached that scale of horror. I had a friend at Fordham who just sat behind his apartment door with a baseball bat.
@@markbanash921 yes, i understand your thoghts. iff i was putin: no changes been taken mate. all or nothing. by the way: forget about tactical nukes. its gonna be all, or nothing. use or lose. russion nucleair doctrine??? mass destruction!! its a sad world out there
@@markbanash921 how would i do it? imagine: i am putin. i would shoot lets say 80 percent of all my nukes, all at once. the other nukes are programmed and so well protected in their bunkers, i program them that lets say 6 weeks after the nukes where exchanged that all the nukes in hiding places come out, fully automatic and nuke the world again. and off course they are capable of these things. dont underistimate the evilness off those kind of systems. remember the posseidon? that independent all on its own cruising nuke in the ocean? how manyare currently stationed on our coasts?
my last comment on this. dont wanna sound like MAD! your kind of thinking is very dangerous!! you assume that it is survivable, so it can be fought!! dont even go there with your thoughts!!
It's worth mentioning that there is peer reviewed research that has challenged some of the fundamentals of a potential nuclear winter. The concept largely stems from soot generated from fires rising into the atmosphere. WW2 presents as an interesting case study for this as there were numerous city wide fires (e.g. Dresden, Tokyo) and two nukes dropped. If the winter theory is to be believed we should have seen a modest cooling effect from particulate matter from WW2, but no such effect was found (Robock & Zambri, 2018). Reisner et al. 2018 modelled a regional exchange between India and Pakistan and found that the vast majority of soot generated by a nuclear exchange between those two nations would not reach the upper atmosphere. Another example in support of this is Saddam's torching of the oil fields. An enormous amount of particulate matter was released by this, and yet the vast majority did not reach the upper atmosphere. I'm not saying that we wouldn't see a cooling effect in a full nuclear exchange between say US and Russia, but such a cooling exchange likely wouldn't be nearly as severe as earlier models (using relatively poor computing power) would suggest. I know it's not as sexy as "were all doomed", and neither should it be an endorsement of nuclear ambivalence, but you should try to present a balanced picture of the scientific literature Simon.
The concept of nuclear winter was pushed by advocates to limit proliferation. A nuke war is actually winnable, but not something that should be considered.
This i what i wrote: @trancewinston1027 0 seconds ago This assumes that nuclear winter theory (and it is a theory), plays out. Did you know that nuclear winter theory was thought up by Carl Sagan and others to create a valid worse case scenario theory that the public, and nations would endorse in the campaign to stop the event of nuclear war. It's entirely honourable as it was in our interest to imagine the worse horror of nuclear war and was, along with 1980s film Threads, (Unless it's an urban myth) instrumental for the nuclear disarmament treaty between Gorby and Reagan. But, now we know that nuclear winter theory actually contradicted the true science at the time and the data from the thousands of nuclear bomb tests that were done. I'm not going to go into it fully in this comment, but basically the theory was that the smoke from the fires caused by nuclear war would rise into the stratosphere, cover the plant and cause a winter like the the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. Now, normal fire smoke particles don't rise that high, are dispersed by wind and weather, washed out by rain. Nuclear winter theory models are also based on a completely flat planet, no topography, with no weather. OK. Krakatoa was 200 megatons. The equivalent of a nuclear exchange of 400 500kt (Half megaton) warheads. Or 13,000 Hiroshimas. It injected more ash into the stratosphere than whole countries on fire could. And no type of nuclear winter effect whatsoever. So 13,000 hiroshimas doesn't do it. What would do it? Well, the dinosaur asteroid would. How many megatons was that? 100 MILLION megatons. The planet maybe have 10,000 warheads and most would be in the low hundreds of kilotons, and half of them probably don' even work. So what can we conclude? That as much destructive power that we have, and all the cities that we could destroy, still would be nothing like anything large enough to cause a global winter such as the Chicxulub dinosaur asteroid. Anyway, all this is kind of immaterial, because a nuclear famine would be really real, and humans would undoubtedly have a severe time trying to survive. Back a few hundred years. That's with an all out global war where everyone chucks everything they have. There are dozens of military war game scenarios for nuclear war, and the vast majority don't result in the whole globe firing every missile they have. Certain countries will likely come out on top. Some may be entirely unscathed. We just don't and can't know.
While a nuclear exchange would certainly be devastating it’s important to note that nuclear winter is a myth that isn’t supported by contemporary or historical events. All of the apocalyptic models of nuclear winter make false assumptions that aren’t grounded in reality. They assume cities will readily firestorm and that the particles from these fires will make it to the upper atmosphere where they will remain even though the only 2 cities that were actually destroyed by nuclear weapons didn’t firestorm which meant nothing significant made it into the upper atmosphere. The fire bombing of Tokyo and Hamburg were far more destructive in their ability to cause fires which still didn’t reach the upper atmosphere. You could also look at recent wildfires which despite burning huge swaths of land had negligible effects on the Earth’s global temperature. Making wild speculations on incorrect assumptions is never a good idea.
Thank you for speaking about this. Nuclear Winter was mostly propaganda spread by anti-Nuclear energy activists who knew that if they associated nuclear weapons with nuclear energy, then it would greatly inhibit people’s willingness to accept nuclear energy as an option
This is true. The effectiveness of nuclear weapons also depends on the terrain. Rocky, mountainous terrain is not ideal for nuclear weapons. The best is flat, level ground. So, essentially Afghanistan would stand a pretty good chance.
Did you even watch the video? Peer-reviewed paper my guy. And obviously there's not gonna be any contemporary or historical events supporting it... it hasnt happened yet. Calling it a myth is ridiculous, to. Its a theory. Also, you outright lied in your comment. Hiroshima did have a firestorm. And the wildfires in Canada and Australia a few years back were enough to put soot into the atmosphere, so clearly it is possible. The paper he's referring to is "Global food insecurity and famine from reduced crop, marine fishery and livestock production due to climate disruption from nuclear war soot injection" The publisher cites these peer reviewers: " Peer review information Nature Food thanks Deepak Ray, Ertharin Cousin, Michal Smetana and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. " Edit: "The fire bombing of Tokyo and Hamburg were far more destructive in their ability to cause fires which still didn’t reach the upper atmosphere." Source? "You could also look at recent wildfires which despite burning huge swaths of land had negligible effects on the Earth’s global temperature. " They actually did have effects, and even though they did burn large amounts of land it is practically nothing compared to the sheer scale of the planet. "Making wild speculations on incorrect assumptions is never a good idea." Speak for yourself.
@@ASlickNamedPimpback ah yes a peer reviewed paper clearly reliable. Academia is a joke, just look at the worsening replication crisis. Any fires that occurred burnt out quickly and only occurred at all because Japanese structures were made entirely of flammable material. In any case a negligible amount of material made it into the upper atmosphere. The bombing or Hiroshima destroyed about 12km^2 of the city. The firebombing of Tokyo destroyed 41km^2 since the bombs were dropped everywhere and not at a single point. As for everything else, I’d give “The Controversial Science of Nuclear Winter” by Neil Halloran a watch. Goes into much more detail than I can in a comment.
For younger generations we took this question very seriously in the 80’s. I recall estimating the impact of nukes targeting the city where we lived in, this was no game. On the 15k nukes, that is down from 63k in 1985. Think about that.
I remember plotting blast and fallout radius on a map in geography lessons at school and then the teacher basically telling us how we would die if we were at home when the bombs fell (probably slowly and horribly in my case). Here in the UK pretty much everyone would have been screwed due to how small our landmass compared to the megatonnage that the ruskies were estimated to have aimed in our direction.
One thing a lot of these disaster warnings failed to mention to people as if, nuclear winter , nuclear war isn’t enough is the fact that nuclear power stations don’t run themselves. The water cooling pumps cool down the reactors in the event that a reactor scrams still need to be cooled, think Fukushima, or hundreds of Fukushima’s just thought I would add to the positive message🤪🧨
I recommend John Wyndham's "The Kraken Wakes" for a great, literary account of survival after a metaphorical nuclear world catastrophe. His "Day of the Triffids" explores similar themes. Both are metaphors for nuclear war.
We've also been toggling between DEFCON 3 & DEFCON 2 over the past months. The DEFCON levels & Atomic clock use to be mentioned in the news almost nightly. Not so much anymore. Interestingly, this dire global situation started in 2020.
Apparently here in New Zealand a bunch of billionaires have been building bunkers, so me and the boys will go find that, tell Zuckerberg to gtfo of OUR bunker and ride out the apocalypse in style ,thanks Mark such a nice guy
I saw a mini-documentary with some obscenely rich "person" (that level of greed is really more mutant than human imo). Him and his servant were _gleefully_ talking about defending their bunker (basically an opulent mostly underground castle) and how that, if intruders came, they _"would stack the bodies like cordwood"_ with the machine gun auto-turrets and other defenses the place had. That's a direct quote, and he said it as if he were looking forward to it. Absolutely psychotic.
@@THE-X-Force yeah theres some phycos out there for sure, we could ambush them on their way to the bunker but once they're in there it would be pretty hard to get in, maby get a mining drill to drill a hole in the top perhaps and pump it full of exhaust fumes, or gas? But even if that works you would have to blow the main door, and the bunker would be compromised so a lot of work for just stealing their stuff. Those guns are illegal in nz btw but yeah ultra wealthy individuals play by different rules so who knows. That's messed up they were enjoying thinking about killing people, I know I'm saying I would to them but It's only for survival not going to enjoy doing stuff like that
@@w.murphy5151 I don't remember where the place was tbh .. but I'm pretty sure auto-cannons are illegal just about everywhere .. lol. In any event, you're right. Greed fueled mutants like that live in a completely different reality. I totally understand the need to defend one's doomsday shelter, but if you had seen this whackjob's face when he was talking and laughing about it .. ugh .. Makes me disgusted to think it might be "people" like him who reboot humanity.
I remember during my training in the USAF. We were taught about Time, Distance, and Shielding was our friend. Mean how long since detonation, how far you were from impact and how much material is between you and the blast. And if you do have to go outside, you go out just long enough to get done whatever needs to be done then get back inside your shelter. But you also need an area to do proper decontamination.
Cresson H. Kearny's book on the topic which was developed at his time at Los Alamos and other labs researching fallout/nukes is still considered the cornerstone.
According to Neil Halloran, a famed documentary film maker who has been part of the nuclear disarmament movement for years recently came out and admitted that the likelihood of a "nuclear winter" resulting from a partial or total nuclear exchange between two or more countries has been far over-estimated. What the current science predicts is that it might last for a series of months, if at all, rather than years. Yay, means you'll get to die puking from radiation sickness instead of starvation. But the current science says a nuclear winter is not very likely, at least nothing like on the scale hypothesized in the past. Things will still be awful, don't get me wrong. Most of the people you personally know will probably still die, and you along with them. Nuclear war doesn't need nuclear winter to be absolutely murderous on the world population.
He thought it was survivable. I don't know how much has changed since then. Smaller nukes may mean lower airbursts and that might mean more dust sucked into the fireball and more fallout. But, more accuracy and reliability may mean fewer warheads and less total yield for a war. But, watching Russians attack Ukrainian cities makes me question their targeting logic for a nuclear war.
Tips for gasoline in the apocalypse. If you pop open the bottom skirt of the gas pump they almost always have a hand/manual pump that doesn't require power
It would have been nice to see citations to the peer-reviewed articles. Several TH-cam channels are saying scientists have debunked the theory of nuclear winter.
Another small add: what about nuclear plants after the war? Without energy supply and water cooling every single existing reactor will heat up driving to innumerable Chernobil and Fukushima worldwide. Something like: "Hey dude, what can go worse?"
The vast majority (if not all) have automated shutdown sequences (with these auto systems shielded from emp via Faraday cages) While these the reactors may overheat and breach and leak to the area, you wouldn't be looking at a chernoble event, more like a weak fukashima event. (I work in the power Induatey)
Depending on how dumb and angry the world leader that "presses the button" is rural areas in the targeted nation may not be as safe as we think. "Bread Basket" areas for enemy states are often included in the target listing for full scale nuclear attacks, most nations and leaders mark them as secondary or even tertiary targets since; the whole nuclear winter thing will take care of that if the world go balls to walls nuclear war insanity like in this scenario. But we all know how well some leaders currently in possession of nuclear warheads listen to their advisors so chances are the person in that may be pressing this button in the future are going to be one of those leaders famous for not listening to advisors.
In the famous words of Albert Einstein, "I do not know what weapons will be used in World War 3, but World War 4 will be fought with Sticks and Stones."
The fires are what worry me, being in the middle of the US. You're supposed to bunker down for a week to let the fallout settle but what happens when the fires begin to rage through your town? It always makes me wonder if the world would experience a year worse than 536 AD. With our massive populations there increases the number of atrocities and sacrifices made. Even if most of the world didn't survive I still feel like Australia, New Zealand, parts of Africa and S America would be better off as long as they didn't consume what resources they still had as the world tried to repair itself. It really bothers me that half of society expects this to happen at some point.
Well fire needs an ignition, and if you aren’t near a bomb there’s small chance of a fire starting. Also bunker down for 2 weeks, a week will still be unsafe. Within a month there would be almost zero risk of radiation except ground zero, and within a decade reconstruction should bring a society relatively similar to what came before. No mad max, no Fallout, no Threads bs, but it’ll be somewhere between covid lockdown and Wild West living. Rural areas largely self sufficient, cities undergoing massive construction projects, and trade will decrease along with travel.
I was really happy at about 5:00 mark where he mentioned the fallout would "only" be a threat for a few weeks. It's still nasty stuff but at least 80% of all sci-fi treats nuclear missiles like they render entire regions unlivable for decades instantly. Nuclear winter in particular seems to get depicted as lastingdecades to hundreds of years as a result of nuclear winter. Of course we'd still be in trouble but it would be the EMP and general destruction of all infrastructure we rely upon that's the more long term problem. Those long term problems do exist but it does make sci fi nuclear winter looks a lot more cartoonishly exagerated when all of them treat the nuclear winter and fallout as these boogymen that will forever haunt humanity. We still don't want nuclear war but it's sometimes a bit irritating basically no one ever depicts the results of one even half accurately in media and just fall back on the same tropes.
Exactly, well put. Regarding Fallout, there is actually one kind of nuclear bomb capable of doing that, called a salted bomb. It is basically a nuclear warhead covered in cobalt 60. It would generate a fallout so radioactive that it is capable of rendering big areas unlivable for a couple of decades. Thankfully, no country ever produced such a bomb.
Basing it off media, the TV show jericho I feel described the first couple weeks after a nuclear war accurate if you lived in a rural town far from the blasts. Best case scenario for long term would be like prosperity from farcry new dawn. But not everyone will be living like that and will still try to take what you have.
Honestly such a scenario would not only be another extinction level event but would also be a total reset for humanity as our knowledge will most likely be lost and we would be back to square one
Forget about knowledge, we could keep most books and STILL be unable to build the simplest of computers. Without large amounts of gasoline, long distance transport would be impossible. We would be unable to make steel. Even iron. Given a couple of decades for everything to rust we would go back to the stone age even if we had whole libraries and colleges full of teachers. Even under the best circumstances lack of gasoline would doom us within a few decades. And the circumstances would NOT be the best. We would be struggling to survive using equipment that could not be replaced while unable to educate a new generation to start from almost the beginning on just the knowledge that it COULD be done. Even if a whole continent escaped untouched, it would start regressing immediately as its equipment and stores of goods run out or wore down. Too many resources would be unavailable, too much technology would have been lost elsewhere, there would be too much demand on the time of its engineers for them to be able to do anything but patch what they had.
Long Island NY here.. Recently, I went to a location that I thought couldn't exist out here given our geography and layout.. The parking garage at St. Francis hospital goes FIVE levels underground which completely blew my mind.. Living on the island, I thought you couldn't dig more than 15 or 20 feet before you hit the water table. Yet the bottom level of the garage is 50+ feet below ground. -- I've never felt more safe in my entire life. Especially in a location no more than 40 miles from what would be ground zero.
Yeah .. depends where you are on the Island (obviously, I guess). I lived in Freeport (Nassau County) for a while. It was a "Cape Cod" style house, with a canal in the backyard, and a half-basement that would flood every time there was a high tide and a full moon. Sometimes we'd be in rowboats going down the street like it was Venice. I doubt that basement could have been dug ten feet deeper without hitting water. Then again, when in the basement, we were surrounded by concrete which itself was surrounded (at least partially) by *_many_* feet of water, which is an excellent barrier to radiation.
@@THE-X-Force -- yep. Most places on the island, you can't dig down too far.. And sometimes the water table can shift.. Friends of mine lived in Deer Park and when they built that outlet mall, the construction shifted the water table.. They went from never having a problem in 20 years, to 10 years of sheer hell.
Brandon is the missile. Notice how he walks and they freak when he falls. He has 20 lbs. of plutonium in his head. The ice cream keeps it cool. He has to eat it or he goes to whispering. The pressure relief. Just my opinion
Ummm...Pretty crappy? ---- Dude, Any "holes" in the earth's ozone layer aren't actually holes. They are patches where the ozone is thinner. They move around with the rest of the atmosphere, getting replenished by the ozone from surrounding areas. The end effect is that the ozone layer itself will become thinner in height over the entire earth, not a planet with various holes in its ozone layer
Simon: you ever watch the film "Threads"? A well-done movie from the UK, it pretty much says it all. Actually, you might have mentioned it or covered it a ways back.
Recent research shows that in crisis situations humans tend to turn hard toward cooperation. So the roving bands of armed strangers is actually rather unlikely until we start to see severe resource shortages that would cause conflict. Even then it would likely be tribal conflict versus Farmer John and his small personal arsenal.
No mention of MIRV's? Each "Missile" has perhaps 6 to 12 nuclear bombs on the end, and they separate out before exploding. So "just" 3 rockets hitting an area will consist of at the extreme end - 36 nuclear explosions in a "small" area of maybe 20-80 miles.... ......
I've always wondered about all the nuclear power plants left unattended and/or damaged after a nuclear war. Would they not all melt down over time and spread radiation unchecked forever across the globe?
That is a detail most people miss. Power plants can potentially spew more radiation than bombs. And keep at it. So to the nukes we would add HUNDREDS of out of control power plants spewing radiation. I can easily see this making Europe uninhabitable.
Unless the scram mechanisms or cooling systems are damaged then all bets are off. The technicians will probably have long since vacated to secure their own survival.
At this point, the Doomsday Clock is pretty much a joke. It's about as accurate as the crazy people who carry around signs proclaiming, "The End is Nigh!"
@@thomaskositzki9424 Really? The "Doomsday clock" has never been more than 17 minutes from midnight FOR 75 YEARS! At some point, you have to come to the realization that these predictions are next to worthless.
@@ABQSentinel You seem to not get the point. Let me explain to you: ever since we passed a global stockpile of around 1000 nuclear weapons, the threat is like every human on Earth had a 9mm pistol strapped to their heads permanently. And the leaders of the US, Russia and China hold the trigger to fire them all. So we are at all times a mere 30 minutes preparation and flight time away from dying out. I would say the clock is pretty accurate. The only way for the doomsday clock to get any further away from midnight is massive nuclear disarmament. There were good measures taken in the 90's and early 2000's but we sadly failed to reach save levels.
Raymond Briggs, well known for his Christmas story "The Snowman" was also responsible for writing another cartoon feature, "Where the Wind Blows". During the 1980s we in the UK were treated to advice booklets about how to cope with nuclear attack. This obviously wasn't for city dwellers since it wasn't targeted at the 'total destruction' or 'heavy damage' zones but the outer zones of light or even no damage where the biggest danger was from fallout. Briggs's cartoon -- done in the style of "The Snowman" -- chronicles the life of an older couple who follow the Home Office's "Shelter in Place" advice per the booklet. It didn't end well. Worth watching. Bits of it, or even a complete version, can be found on youTube.
Hilarious how you used a graphic of Donald Trump riding a missile, when he's actually the only president in the last 70 years to not start any new conflicts and actively work to de-escalate the ones we're in. Good one, beardo.
My guess is that in the US, the military would immediately declare martial law and take charge of moving people out of what was left of the larger cities to the rural areas and smaller towns, so the farmer who met you with a shotgun would either become much more cooperative immediately or cease to be a problem after the military took care of the situation. There is a map out on the web that shows the likely targets, assuming (1) that 250 warheads are used (a limited nuclear strike) and (2) 2,000 warheads were used. Russia has about 6,000 warheads but most of these are in storage, hence the 2,000 worst case scenario. My smaller city is not a direct target, nor in the dangerous fallout shadow, so I would be likely to survive the initial blast. The biggest issue would whether we really had a nuclear winter or a nuclear fall - it is all speculation right now, and hopefully will always be speculation, but a severe nuclear winter would probably mean the death of 5 billion spread all over the planet, most from starvation. In some ways the lucky people would be those who died immediately. If it turns out that we have a nuclear fall instead of a nuclear winter, then the situation would be much better.
@Peter Cohen The US military that would be enforcing martial law Iwould be the National Guard, that is part of the civilian world (thus spread out) rather than concentrated on military bases. I am not in the guard, but I am pretty sure they have procedures in place to handle something like a nuclear attack or major natural event, like a major earthquake.
There will be no government, no army or national guard in the event of a full scale nuclear war, those few that survive the blasts and radiation will be all out on surviving from day to day.
@1:35. Hilarious to have the only American president in recent history to not start a new war being the one riding a nuke 😆 that's a good bit of satire 🤙🍆🤫
The idea of a nuclear winter has been more recently replaced with the idea of a nuclear autumn - which isn't quite as bad. The nuclear winter was based on particulate/soot numbers from Hiroshima, but most of their buildings were wood.
The fact that the "scientists" who maintain this clock deem that in 1961 during the Cuban missile crisis, we were further from midnight on the doomsday clock than today tells you everything you need to know
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NBw1jF342vw/mqdefault.jpg)
In my opinion, it's not about "can you survive a nuclear war", it's more like "do you really want to survive a nuclear war?"
Sorry I do dig existing.. and so that's a Yes from me. Who will carry the tales of the past to the future anyway?
I mean I've seen Mad Max a good few times and would like to wear a lot of leather and car tyres and drive a V8 (that magically doesn't need fuel)
Nah, thanks. I go and look for a dead soldier or policeman with a gun and do me the favour of shooting myself (I live in Germany, we usually don't own guns). Can't be bothered.
I doubt humanity would survive the nuclear winter anyway, for various reasons.
its about allowing the maniacs to put us all in the situation.
and why we havent all joined together to stop them.
we should have killed oppenheimer and einstein at an early stage.
@anamericangypsy Yes, we do have a survival instinct, which makes crucifixion so agonizing - even knowing you're going to die and the sooner the better, you do everything to survive, regardless. True fact: the people without this survival instinct are not our ancestors.
Even so, a lot of survivors will envy the dead. But they will do everything they can to survive, no matter the odds or how futile the prospect. So, it's possible to think of being better off dead while moving Heaven and earth to survive.
We'll use bottle caps for currency and mutated creatures will roam the wasteland.
Long as nobody ever bothers me about a settlement that needs my help or marks it on my map
@Justin Coates The animals look relatively normal at Chernobyl. Some have tumors but there are very few that have actual mutations.
@@Nukefandango Or calls me General then proceeds to give me orders.
Mutated creatures, check ✔️
@@mattt233 it was a joke about the fallout videogame series. Great sense of humor
It is just me or does Simon appear remarkably cheerful while describing nuclear winter?
It's one of those laugh or cry situations.
It's gallows humour. :)
Always kind of Simon to put a happy face on painfully sad subjects.
The wheels have come off and what you see is sheer terror in his eyes as the train barrels towards a cliff of doom...
So yeah, he is "cheerful" 🙂
It is called snarky. Considering London is part of the axes of evil, he is toast.
Growing up with a Fallout Shelter in every school I attended, this kind of hits me like a feather. Plus, my dad was in the Air Force Security Service, so I knew what would happen anyway.
We had 5 confirmed USSR targets surrounding my house and schools. There was no place for us to go and we knew it.
@craigsheffield6546 @finscreenname
That's what happens when you go bullying around the globe, until someone strong enough faces you.
Karma is a bitch huh?
Given your name, Threads should have prepared you too!
@@jn4kp1everyone in the US thinks they are an innocent victim lmao
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for nuclear winter.
For the sheer bleakness and horror, watch Threads. I'm 55 and grew up with the threat of nuclear war seemingly inevitable. Threads scared the absolute crap out of me. It made Mad Max and the accompanying films seem like a holiday 😂
nothing like picking spuds in a cold dark winter then giving birth to one in a cold wet barn in Sheffield ...and thats now....🤣
Same
Yup - had to watch threads at scool - It made living through the 80's a pretty bleak prospect given the threat we lived under... Still, all we remember now is how good the music was back then.. :D
Does that experience make it easier to cope with the threat now?
I've never watched it, it was too scary.
How many channels does this guy have? He wakes up, talks into a camera for 16 hours, then passes out. God bless this hardworking man
there's no escape from him
I'm not convinced he sleeps...
😂😂
Ahh bless your soul!
Welcome to the world of Fact Boi, comrade!
A.K.A. The Whistlerverse.
@@AlienDenzil85 watch brain blaze and you might find his secret helper.
Its a team of clones
As a few other brave souls have commented about, I have seen more recent studies that have questioned the whole nuclear winter thing and have claimed that the effects have been way overstated, maybe rightly, to scare people. The studies suggest that based upon 40 years of research since the nuclear winter scenario, observations about volcanos and other disasters have shown that particulates do not stay in the atmosphere as long as feared and actually come back down fairly quickly. Maybe even weeks to a few months.
Now, that is not to downplay the millions that would die in the blast zones and from fallout and other problems but rural areas might not be as bad off as feared. And if there is no, or limited nuclear winter, that would mean that most of the southern hemisphere would actually be pretty okay.
That is correct, most of the southern hemisphere would be ok and capable of growing crops.
And all those people living there would gladly let everyone from the North migrate and start taking over. Or would they?
And that's just one, isolated issue with the premise.
@@loopmantra8314 well, since they seem to have no problem migrating illegally to America for the last 30 years with their hands out, I think they owe us.
@@bobross1829 yeah, you tell them that see how it works out in the end.
@@loopmantra8314 Who said anything about asking?
@@bobross1829 you think you stand a chance taking? During or shortly after nuclear holocaust? The one that wiped out most of infrastructure and army personnel?
Yeah, ok buddy
The people who caused it would be safe in their bunkers until the worst of the fallout passes. So we need to remember to be waiting for them when they emerge...
The fucked up thing is only the people who are hunkered down in fall out shelters get to push the button
That sounds fucked up, until you realize that those people get to survive in a nuclear hellscape. The true winners are the people who live in the center of impact zones.
I don't think "get" to push the button is the right word there . . . they don't want to have to live in underground bottles till the dust cools, you know.
@@RoonasaurMaybe he wants to push the button.
If you've seen one thermo-nuclear war, you've seen them all.
I see what you did there
I’ve seen “Threads” and “The Day After”, I think I’d rather be sat at ground zero, a brief flash of light and then that’s it.
Simon forgot to mention the global pandemic caused by all the rotting carrion lying about. Don't think about going to the hospital, the medical system collapsed because they're all dead.
And to think United Nations by overwhelming majority vote banned nuclear weapons and international tax avoidance in 2017, but 1%er stonks gambling addiction is more important than survival of the human species.
*depends...when you have radioactive livestock and angry trees attacking the remnants of human civilization followed by those waves of zombies that follow afterward life would get pretty tedious*
So we just ignoring how WW2 ended? lol
1:15 - Chapter 1 - Defining parameters
2:50 - Chapter 2 - The 1st days
7:05 - Chapter 3 - Nuclear winter & nuclear famine
11:00 - Chapter 4 - The years to come
As at least one other user has cited, I second watching a film called Threads (1984). A stark and grim look into what the reality of a nuclear apocalypse could be instead of how the Fallout series makes it out to be.
Can confirm. As a child of the 80s, "Threads" terrified me. I've watched it more recently, and although it's aged, it still terrifies me.
Have you seen The Day After? It's about the consequences immediately following a nuclear strike.
Saw both during school back then, all world leaders should watch
It's a fun little flick.
Agreed. That film terrified me as a teenager when it came out
I don’t know who put this together, but as a rural living American, I’m not chasing the guy away with my shotgun. That’s good meat we’d be letting go to waste and in our new post-apocalypse world, that’s just bad manners letting a meal escape.
Annie Jacobsen said there's no such thing as a 'limited' nuclear war. The moment the 1st is launched It's total oblivion
True, though she never adequately addressed what a total (regional) nuclear war like India vs Pakistan would be like.
I think that scenario is more likely
She gives an absolute worst case scenario, not a definitive reality because there could in certain circumstance where in a regional war or if communications were open between U.S. ,NATO AND RUSSIA or CHINA to know exactly what was happening it may not go to Armageddon but any Nuclear explosions would effect everything on earth.
I decided a long time ago that I have zero desire to survive an apocalypse
I'm with you I want to be vaporised
good for us, more food
And if you do survive, you’re fucked. Imagine being stuck in an apocalypse with no thought on how to survive, you’ll just die of dehydration, because you won’t have the balls to off yourself. Dehydration, starvation are basically getting tortured to death by time. It’s worth training and being prepared because if you aren’t instantly killed you’ll have no choice. Either survive or die a horrendous and excruciating death.
@@ryanengyt3449as long as you can hold it down.
One thing not mentioned here is the hemisphere difference. When you look at all the nuclear war scenarios the missiles are all flying in the northern hemisphere. The Southern hemisphere would be relatively untouched at least by the missiles themselves. They would still get hit by nuclear winter of course but otherwise would be okay. South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, South America. Those would be the place to be.
All hail our new Australian overlords
Thats a fallacy that has been debunked, the southern hemisphere will be in a nuclear winter for a minimum of 10-15 years... not many will survive without food production.
In a full nuclear exchange no one really knows what it would do to the planet
Submarines would hammer Oz. Argentina would be the ones that came out the best.
The dust thrown into the atmosphere would encircle the Earth. So you are looking at 25% less sunlight at the surface even in the Southern hemisphere when the sky looks clear. The Northern hemisphere would have the largest temperature drop (think polar vortex x10). Weather patterns in the Southern would mirror the north just to a lesser extent. This would cause a massive shift in the hydrosphere, meaning areas where there is lush farming and rainforest would suddenly see 50% less rain. He does not say it in this video, but in others you can find on YT they suggest most of the world's rainforests would die back 75% which now reinforces the global drought. THIS IS WHAT KILLS 5+ BILLION PEOPLE. There is no food. There is no water. There is no global trade. Most technology doesn't work anymore.
He sort of touched on this at the very end, but said it was only over cities; that is wrong:
After a nuclear war, all the detonations will damage the global ozone layer, which increases the amount of UV light that makes it to the surface. This will kill at least 10% of all plant life. Cancer rates will skyrocket, and so will eye damage (animals [and people] will start going blind over the next 2 years).
What I did not like is that he avoided the big point: you can't hide from the radiation. While 2 weeks works for surviving the highly radioactive stuff in blast zones, the lighter, "less deadly" radiation will spread across continents and eventually encircle the earth. It's in the air. It's in the water. It's in the crops. It's in the animals. People will not die of this immediately, but globally... human lifespans will be shortened. Blood and organ cancers will rise 1000% in anyone who survived the war, no matter where they lived. And the children born after the war will also have shortened lifespans.
There was a novel called "Warday" written about the aftermath of a "limited" nuclear war. The Soviets bombed Washington DC, New York, San Antonio, and the various "Minutemen" missile silos and military bases throughout the northwest (suddenly being in a rural area doesn't sound so safe).
The novel is a first person narrative of a journalist who received a high dose of radiation and 5 years after the war decides to spend his limited remaining time traveling around the US to document what has happened.
It's been years, but I remember the novel being very good.
Warday is to nuclear-war novels what "Threads" is to nuclear-war movies. The best researched, the most plausible, by far the best written of any novel dealing with the subject. If you want to have a good idea of what surviving a nuclear war would be like -- at least as good an idea as you can get from fiction -- then "Threads" and Warday are an absolute must. There is nothing in fiction that will take you closer than those two works.
The writing is so brilliant in Warday that when one of the authors is describing being in New York City, riding a bus, when the pattern of warheads began detonating, and especially the days to follow when he's trying to escape with his family from a dark, irradiated, lawless New York City on foot because literally EVERYTHING has quit working due to EMP, the unbelievably eerie thing about it is that if you didn't know what you were reading, and just picked up the book and opened it to that section, you'd be certain the author was describing NYC in the aftermath of 9/11. It's crazy how similar it is, and that section of the book was written probably 20 years before 9/11.
Absolute brilliance.
Whitley Strieber and James Kunetka wrote this, as I recall. Extremely well written, had a very down-to-earth feel to it, and as a boomer who bought and read it way back when, I found it quite chilling. The United Kingdom basically mounts an enormous civil defence operation and , in the process, kind of re-absorbs the eastern and southern states back into the Empire.
You know living in a rural area isn't the same as living in the praire near a silo right? There's not a nuke in every corn field.
I love this book. Read it twice.
11:52 Terminator 3 was a lot of things but that Judgement Day scene hit heavy
There is a British made film from 1984 called Threads and for a time was stopped from UK people being able to see it because it was likely very truthful and disturbing. It's about a nuclear attack on Sheffield. All I can say is I wouldn't want to live through an event like that and especially after it. The after events looks far worse!!
Dad talked about the cold war and their neighbor putting in a bomb shelter. This was in the early 1960's, right before the Cuban missile crisis. Dad was 10 or 11, he still recalls that conversation between their neighbor and his dad(my grandpa). Grandpa told the man he prayed every night for peace, and if peace was not in God's will that his family suffer a quick and painless death out of this world. He didn't want them to suffer thru the hell of after the bomb. Dad said he started mocking him a bit with something along the lines of "Hell if I ain't right with Jesus, I'd rather go dance with the devil in Hell than live thru armageddon". That's some rather nihilistic shit from a man who I know had a strong religious conviction and accepted Jesus as his savior. Joking or not, I think a lot of Americans shared a similar view.
Jesus won’t ever save us from ourselves because nukes are real, and religion is a lie.
Kudos for using humor to approach this subject because honestly the only way to consider this sort of hellish scenario without running screaming for the hills is Dark Humor. Very Dark Humor. With a little sprinkle of sarcasm on top. Also, loving the new channel. 👍
In the tradition of Kubreck's film Doctor Strange Love it how I came to love the bomb.
I dunno. Approaching it in a matter-of-fact manner might be more impactful (but FAR less entertaining).
Regarding the post-nuclear war environment, I always thought that the Twilight Zone episode "The Old Man in the Cave" had the most realistic conditions (sans the actual "old man in the cave").
From a book perspective, the scenario in "A Canticle for Lebowitz" did an excellent job portraying how the post-nuclear society would evolve and rebuild over a long period of time. The first vignette in that book takes place maybe 500 years after the war. Things are very much like the dark ages after the fall of the Roman empire....except with forbidden zones and mutants (the mis-born). It didn't help that the survivors were so angry in the initial aftermath of the nuclear war, that they killed all the smart people and destroyed all the books (so it could never happen again). As a result, nearly everyone was illiterate and stupid. Not sure how realistic that part was, but I think people would be very pissed and irrational for quite a while.
Probably there wouldn't be any humans left after hundred years from a nuke war. Extinction is more likely than survival. Russia could secretly have a Dooms Day device,which they haven't tested.yet. The Tsiar Bomba test of 50 megatons in the 60s, was the first step towards the Dooms Day bomb.
I don't believe that at all. I believe it would have the opposite effect actually.
People wouldn't blame science. They would blame weak and selfish leaders.
Yeah that last part is pretty dumb. Most likely people would be entirely concerned with getting their immediate needs met in the aftermath and securing the things they want moving forward to worry about engineering what might happen in 1000 years.
The anti-intellectuals are moving already. They won't burn what's left of science after the war, they are doing their best to do so *before*.
sound a bit like the Republican plan for the USA right now
Albert Einstein - "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones".
Welcome to Mad Max: Fury Road. I am gonna be Doof Warrior
Even the sticks and stones will be radiated.....
@@chriswilde7246 ah it just means your rock will do extra poison damage
@@everythingsalright1121 Yes....that's a point, it will become a dirty rock lol..
Sticks and stones will be true by technicality, WW4 will have asteroids and kinetic projectiles from railguns. Maybe some casaba howitzers too, or directed x-Ray beams for extraterrestrial combat.
nuclear winter bad, but with grid down,
90 percent dead from starvation alone in less than a year
I've written a series of articles about this subject. You have covered it quite thoroughly, but there are a few facts missing - probably due to time constraints.
First, not only would food be a major problem, medical treatments would also disappear. Hospitals are generally located in large metropolitan areas, and so would be the first to go. Even if a few survived, they would quickly become useless. There would be no electricity to support them, and they would quickly deplete their medical stocks - given the problems that any survivors experienced due to burns and radiation poisoning. It would be back to home remedies only - not good. Those five billion corpses you mentioned would be a MAJOR breeding ground for disease - as well as the carcasses of all other animals who died during and after the fallout.
Under the circumstances you outlined, the human race would quickly revert to the Stone Age. You have to ask yourself - can you make a metal instrument such as an ax or a plow. How about clothes, can you spin thread or yarn into something to wear? What's left of humanity would be reduced to wearing skins and using stone tools to survive.
What's even worse is our knowledge - all the progress we've made through the millenniums - would quickly disappear. Forever. Because of the tribalism you spoke of, language would fracture and splinter many times. It would be very difficult for the human race to exchange information under the circumstances. Even if certain books containing such knowledge did survivor, the remains of humanity would quickly lose it's understanding of it - making them worthless.
Given these facts, it would take not hundreds but thousands of years for the human race to completely recover. If at all. Humanity would again face species-threatening events such as plague, famine, and everything else you could think of. Makes you want to pray "Please God, no."
Great follow up comment. Thank you.
Not true hill people do make cloths like the Amish do and tools most never go into towns eather but make everything they need so only the city people the woke would suffer for the most part
Curious about language fracturing. Doesn't that usually happen over centuries? I wouldn't think a few decades would cause a huge break down other than for slangs and nuances.
@@BenjaminCronce It would happen much more quickly under this circumstance, due to the fact all means of rapid communication and transportation would disappear. Even if some horses survived (doubtful) it would still be a very slow process that one pocket of survivors could have contact with another. As a result, new words and expressions unique to each pocket would come into use, while others died off. Within just few decades, enough new words would enter each group's vocabulary that someone would be needed to translate. Yes, core English would probably still be in place, but it would fade even faster with each passing year. Exchanging ideas becomes very difficult under the circumstances.
@@williamgray8104 So you're saying that only city people would suffer in such circumstances - so who cares? First, you are incredibly naïve if you think it would not affect everyone. Second, it shows that you are a heartless bastard who has no compassion for his fellow human beings.
I watched Threads (1984) on a chill sunday morning, that was a harrowing experience
But on a positive note, if you survive the nuclear apocalypse, you get to meet Vulcans 🖖
Only 40 years to go...
@@kwamesmith3214 Rock n Roll!!
I think Simon has been enjoying some post apocalyptic homebrew around the fire, cause he so happy with this video!!!
Depends on the kind of "Nuke."
Old nukes cause long term radioactivity.
The newer ones cause mostly short lived radiation.
Most would be airburst, so a nuclear winter is unlikely.
How high above ground level the bombs are detonated aren't the only factor. The number of detonations matters also.
The scenario discussed in the video is a full out nuclear war between the US and Russia. In that scenario, with hundreds of detonations, a nuclear winter is not only likely, but guaranteed. That would last at least a decade. Most will not make it through that.
never been a fan of horror movies, but those depicting nuclear war and its aftermath scare the hell out of me.
Rural areas here in the US are also the places where the military has its ground-based nuclear missile capability as well as key airbases. Chances are areas like the Dakotas will be completely destroyed by the Russians in order to neutralize those weapons and facilities. There is actually very little reason to bomb a place like New York from a military perspective.
the only military perspective would be: to kill of the population: no more man going in the army. no more woman getting babys. cause they died. so it would be very logical to nuke big metropolitan areas.
@@ChristophDeClercq-mj1pk I hate to sound like Dr. Strangelove, but that's exactly the reason for not destroying the city. New York City can't feed or power itself, and if you've bombed all the supply sources you just have one angry, hungry, scared mob of people. I lived through the blackout in the late 1970s and saw what happened to the city when the power went out. No John Carpenter movie reached that scale of horror. I had a friend at Fordham who just sat behind his apartment door with a baseball bat.
@@markbanash921 yes, i understand your thoghts. iff i was putin: no changes been taken mate. all or nothing. by the way: forget about tactical nukes. its gonna be all, or nothing. use or lose. russion nucleair doctrine??? mass destruction!! its a sad world out there
@@markbanash921 how would i do it? imagine: i am putin. i would shoot lets say 80 percent of all my nukes, all at once. the other nukes are programmed and so well protected in their bunkers, i program them that lets say 6 weeks after the nukes where exchanged that all the nukes in hiding places come out, fully automatic and nuke the world again. and off course they are capable of these things. dont underistimate the evilness off those kind of systems. remember the posseidon? that independent all on its own cruising nuke in the ocean? how manyare currently stationed on our coasts?
my last comment on this. dont wanna sound like MAD! your kind of thinking is very dangerous!! you assume that it is survivable, so it can be fought!! dont even go there with your thoughts!!
Let's just say Simon's motto, "The past was the worst" will have to be updated.
He can make a new channel where he talks about this
@@MarsLonsen To his tree surviving friends. Edit: through the gap in an open cardboard box.
Simon, you are a laugh-riot. I came to this expecting WarOGraphic, but this was the Goon Squad of the apocalypse. Bravo, my man! Well played.
It's worth mentioning that there is peer reviewed research that has challenged some of the fundamentals of a potential nuclear winter. The concept largely stems from soot generated from fires rising into the atmosphere. WW2 presents as an interesting case study for this as there were numerous city wide fires (e.g. Dresden, Tokyo) and two nukes dropped. If the winter theory is to be believed we should have seen a modest cooling effect from particulate matter from WW2, but no such effect was found (Robock & Zambri, 2018). Reisner et al. 2018 modelled a regional exchange between India and Pakistan and found that the vast majority of soot generated by a nuclear exchange between those two nations would not reach the upper atmosphere. Another example in support of this is Saddam's torching of the oil fields. An enormous amount of particulate matter was released by this, and yet the vast majority did not reach the upper atmosphere.
I'm not saying that we wouldn't see a cooling effect in a full nuclear exchange between say US and Russia, but such a cooling exchange likely wouldn't be nearly as severe as earlier models (using relatively poor computing power) would suggest.
I know it's not as sexy as "were all doomed", and neither should it be an endorsement of nuclear ambivalence, but you should try to present a balanced picture of the scientific literature Simon.
The concept of nuclear winter was pushed by advocates to limit proliferation. A nuke war is actually winnable, but not something that should be considered.
Thank you! Glad I’m not the only one who read this paper.
I agree, but what constitutes a "Full Nuclear Exchange" ...every countries full arsenal ?
I've just written a long comment above about this exact same subject.
This i what i wrote:
@trancewinston1027
0 seconds ago
This assumes that nuclear winter theory (and it is a theory), plays out. Did you know that nuclear winter theory was thought up by Carl Sagan and others to create a valid worse case scenario theory that the public, and nations would endorse in the campaign to stop the event of nuclear war. It's entirely honourable as it was in our interest to imagine the worse horror of nuclear war and was, along with 1980s film Threads, (Unless it's an urban myth) instrumental for the nuclear disarmament treaty between Gorby and Reagan. But, now we know that nuclear winter theory actually contradicted the true science at the time and the data from the thousands of nuclear bomb tests that were done. I'm not going to go into it fully in this comment, but basically the theory was that the smoke from the fires caused by nuclear war would rise into the stratosphere, cover the plant and cause a winter like the the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. Now, normal fire smoke particles don't rise that high, are dispersed by wind and weather, washed out by rain. Nuclear winter theory models are also based on a completely flat planet, no topography, with no weather. OK. Krakatoa was 200 megatons. The equivalent of a nuclear exchange of 400 500kt (Half megaton) warheads. Or 13,000 Hiroshimas. It injected more ash into the stratosphere than whole countries on fire could. And no type of nuclear winter effect whatsoever. So 13,000 hiroshimas doesn't do it. What would do it? Well, the dinosaur asteroid would. How many megatons was that? 100 MILLION megatons. The planet maybe have 10,000 warheads and most would be in the low hundreds of kilotons, and half of them probably don' even work. So what can we conclude? That as much destructive power that we have, and all the cities that we could destroy, still would be nothing like anything large enough to cause a global winter such as the Chicxulub dinosaur asteroid. Anyway, all this is kind of immaterial, because a nuclear famine would be really real, and humans would undoubtedly have a severe time trying to survive. Back a few hundred years. That's with an all out global war where everyone chucks everything they have. There are dozens of military war game scenarios for nuclear war, and the vast majority don't result in the whole globe firing every missile they have. Certain countries will likely come out on top. Some may be entirely unscathed. We just don't and can't know.
While a nuclear exchange would certainly be devastating it’s important to note that nuclear winter is a myth that isn’t supported by contemporary or historical events. All of the apocalyptic models of nuclear winter make false assumptions that aren’t grounded in reality. They assume cities will readily firestorm and that the particles from these fires will make it to the upper atmosphere where they will remain even though the only 2 cities that were actually destroyed by nuclear weapons didn’t firestorm which meant nothing significant made it into the upper atmosphere. The fire bombing of Tokyo and Hamburg were far more destructive in their ability to cause fires which still didn’t reach the upper atmosphere. You could also look at recent wildfires which despite burning huge swaths of land had negligible effects on the Earth’s global temperature. Making wild speculations on incorrect assumptions is never a good idea.
Thank you for speaking about this. Nuclear Winter was mostly propaganda spread by anti-Nuclear energy activists who knew that if they associated nuclear weapons with nuclear energy, then it would greatly inhibit people’s willingness to accept nuclear energy as an option
Nuclear winter theory spread the
idea in population minds that it is
futile to prepare. Meanwhile our
militaries know it's not true.
This is true. The effectiveness of nuclear weapons also depends on the terrain. Rocky, mountainous terrain is not ideal for nuclear weapons. The best is flat, level ground. So, essentially Afghanistan would stand a pretty good chance.
Did you even watch the video? Peer-reviewed paper my guy. And obviously there's not gonna be any contemporary or historical events supporting it... it hasnt happened yet. Calling it a myth is ridiculous, to. Its a theory. Also, you outright lied in your comment. Hiroshima did have a firestorm. And the wildfires in Canada and Australia a few years back were enough to put soot into the atmosphere, so clearly it is possible.
The paper he's referring to is "Global food insecurity and famine from reduced crop, marine fishery and livestock production due to climate disruption from nuclear war soot injection" The publisher cites these peer reviewers:
"
Peer review information
Nature Food thanks Deepak Ray, Ertharin Cousin, Michal Smetana and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
"
Edit: "The fire bombing of Tokyo and Hamburg were far more destructive in their ability to cause fires which still didn’t reach the upper atmosphere." Source?
"You could also look at recent wildfires which despite burning huge swaths of land had negligible effects on the Earth’s global temperature. " They actually did have effects, and even though they did burn large amounts of land it is practically nothing compared to the sheer scale of the planet.
"Making wild speculations on incorrect assumptions is never a good idea." Speak for yourself.
@@ASlickNamedPimpback ah yes a peer reviewed paper clearly reliable. Academia is a joke, just look at the worsening replication crisis.
Any fires that occurred burnt out quickly and only occurred at all because Japanese structures were made entirely of flammable material. In any case a negligible amount of material made it into the upper atmosphere.
The bombing or Hiroshima destroyed about 12km^2 of the city. The firebombing of Tokyo destroyed 41km^2 since the bombs were dropped everywhere and not at a single point.
As for everything else, I’d give “The Controversial Science of Nuclear Winter” by Neil Halloran a watch. Goes into much more detail than I can in a comment.
Simon you are single-handedly the hardest-working person on TH-cam!! Always quality tho! Cheers!
For younger generations we took this question very seriously in the 80’s. I recall estimating the impact of nukes targeting the city where we lived in, this was no game. On the 15k nukes, that is down from 63k in 1985. Think about that.
I remember plotting blast and fallout radius on a map in geography lessons at school and then the teacher basically telling us how we would die if we were at home when the bombs fell (probably slowly and horribly in my case). Here in the UK pretty much everyone would have been screwed due to how small our landmass compared to the megatonnage that the ruskies were estimated to have aimed in our direction.
One thing a lot of these disaster warnings failed to mention to people as if, nuclear winter , nuclear war isn’t enough is the fact that nuclear power stations don’t run themselves. The water cooling pumps cool down the reactors in the event that a reactor scrams still need to be cooled, think Fukushima, or hundreds of Fukushima’s just thought I would add to the positive message🤪🧨
I like imagining myself in a Mad Max esque word but at the same time… I’m good 😂
The dark humor is a welcome tension breaker in the present. Can't imagine how watching this would hit in a future where it happened.
As a fancy city boy from New York City I am quite confident in my status as Completely Fucked™ should this ever happen....... pls don't happen 😥
I look at an ANG base every day and think could I get twenty miles away before the second strike
A lot would have to go wrong, people have seen enough death and destruction.
Head to the subway! (Underground train, not the sandwich place)
Lol
@@cambs0181
Thanks for the clarification
I recommend John Wyndham's "The Kraken Wakes" for a great, literary account of survival after a metaphorical nuclear world catastrophe. His "Day of the Triffids" explores similar themes. Both are metaphors for nuclear war.
We've also been toggling between DEFCON 3 & DEFCON 2 over the past months. The DEFCON levels & Atomic clock use to be mentioned in the news almost nightly. Not so much anymore. Interestingly, this dire global situation started in 2020.
My best hope is that my skeleton will make for some amusing environmental storytelling
Apparently here in New Zealand a bunch of billionaires have been building bunkers, so me and the boys will go find that, tell Zuckerberg to gtfo of OUR bunker and ride out the apocalypse in style ,thanks Mark such a nice guy
I think just living in New Zealand would be enough to survive.
lucky u are
I saw a mini-documentary with some obscenely rich "person" (that level of greed is really more mutant than human imo). Him and his servant were _gleefully_ talking about defending their bunker (basically an opulent mostly underground castle) and how that, if intruders came, they _"would stack the bodies like cordwood"_ with the machine gun auto-turrets and other defenses the place had. That's a direct quote, and he said it as if he were looking forward to it. Absolutely psychotic.
@@THE-X-Force yeah theres some phycos out there for sure, we could ambush them on their way to the bunker but once they're in there it would be pretty hard to get in, maby get a mining drill to drill a hole in the top perhaps and pump it full of exhaust fumes, or gas? But even if that works you would have to blow the main door, and the bunker would be compromised so a lot of work for just stealing their stuff. Those guns are illegal in nz btw but yeah ultra wealthy individuals play by different rules so who knows. That's messed up they were enjoying thinking about killing people, I know I'm saying I would to them but It's only for survival not going to enjoy doing stuff like that
@@w.murphy5151 I don't remember where the place was tbh .. but I'm pretty sure auto-cannons are illegal just about everywhere .. lol.
In any event, you're right. Greed fueled mutants like that live in a completely different reality.
I totally understand the need to defend one's doomsday shelter, but if you had seen this whackjob's face when he was talking and laughing about it .. ugh ..
Makes me disgusted to think it might be "people" like him who reboot humanity.
Danny would be fine.. He's in the basement. The mushrooms that grow next to the radiator protect him from radiation poisoning.
Simon?! Simon?! … i have the next script!!
I've never seen someone so enthusiastic sounding when talking about nuclear war. Simon is the best.
Better have Hannibal Lector’s cooking skill after a nuclear fallout. Hopefully there’ll be many survivors. 😋 🍽
I remember during my training in the USAF. We were taught about Time, Distance, and Shielding was our friend. Mean how long since detonation, how far you were from impact and how much material is between you and the blast. And if you do have to go outside, you go out just long enough to get done whatever needs to be done then get back inside your shelter. But you also need an area to do proper decontamination.
I'm so glad we could revive this particular bit of 80s nostalgia. So glad.🙃
GODZILLA 1985
Cresson H. Kearny's book on the topic which was developed at his time at Los Alamos and other labs researching fallout/nukes is still considered the cornerstone.
According to Neil Halloran, a famed documentary film maker who has been part of the nuclear disarmament movement for years recently came out and admitted that the likelihood of a "nuclear winter" resulting from a partial or total nuclear exchange between two or more countries has been far over-estimated. What the current science predicts is that it might last for a series of months, if at all, rather than years.
Yay, means you'll get to die puking from radiation sickness instead of starvation. But the current science says a nuclear winter is not very likely, at least nothing like on the scale hypothesized in the past. Things will still be awful, don't get me wrong. Most of the people you personally know will probably still die, and you along with them. Nuclear war doesn't need nuclear winter to be absolutely murderous on the world population.
He thought it was survivable. I don't know how much has changed since then. Smaller nukes may mean lower airbursts and that might mean more dust sucked into the fireball and more fallout. But, more accuracy and reliability may mean fewer warheads and less total yield for a war. But, watching Russians attack Ukrainian cities makes me question their targeting logic for a nuclear war.
@@jakeaurod upwind/upstream vs down is everything.
30-50miles downwind/stream = not good at all. 30miles upsteam/upwind = don't really care.
Another great writing by Kevin with Simon making it very much enjoyable.
Tips for gasoline in the apocalypse. If you pop open the bottom skirt of the gas pump they almost always have a hand/manual pump that doesn't require power
It would have been nice to see citations to the peer-reviewed articles. Several TH-cam channels are saying scientists have debunked the theory of nuclear winter.
Simon: "Five billion people would die."
Me: "Yes, but at what cost?"
Ohhhh, you’re sooooo edgy.
dark humour and cringe don't go well together
Now I want to listen to 2 Minutes to Midnight
Do it!
The fun part of all nuclear apocalipse videos is that they all fail to acknowledge that the planet have a southern hemisphere.
Yeah.. Thought about moving to New Zealand or Easter island.. will be just fine there 😊
Memba k-t. Worst case nuclear war would quite resemble that.
But nuclear winter is getting there too. So it's only marginally better.
The tropics would be well above zero degrees that’s good enough for me
Another small add: what about nuclear plants after the war? Without energy supply and water cooling every single existing reactor will heat up driving to innumerable Chernobil and Fukushima worldwide. Something like: "Hey dude, what can go worse?"
The vast majority (if not all) have automated shutdown sequences (with these auto systems shielded from emp via Faraday cages) While these the reactors may overheat and breach and leak to the area, you wouldn't be looking at a chernoble event, more like a weak fukashima event. (I work in the power Induatey)
A new Channel !
Simon - thinking of a scientific word for describing nuclear disasters …
“Your fucked !” 😂😂😂 well said
You get really energetic when faced with an existential threat
Depending on how dumb and angry the world leader that "presses the button" is rural areas in the targeted nation may not be as safe as we think. "Bread Basket" areas for enemy states are often included in the target listing for full scale nuclear attacks, most nations and leaders mark them as secondary or even tertiary targets since; the whole nuclear winter thing will take care of that if the world go balls to walls nuclear war insanity like in this scenario. But we all know how well some leaders currently in possession of nuclear warheads listen to their advisors so chances are the person in that may be pressing this button in the future are going to be one of those leaders famous for not listening to advisors.
Also first strike might target silos and those are usually in rural areas
The Great Plains--North America's breadbasket, is also where most of the Minuteman Missile silos are located. D'oh!
Putin apparently listens to his advisors; they just keep lying to him; making things sound way better than they really are.
In the famous words of Albert Einstein, "I do not know what weapons will be used in World War 3, but World War 4 will be fought with Sticks and Stones."
There is also General Curtis LeMay ( first US Air Force commander ): The only way to win a nuclear war is to not fight one.
And to quote Sergeant Johnson from Halo"we have to share the Rock"
The fires are what worry me, being in the middle of the US. You're supposed to bunker down for a week to let the fallout settle but what happens when the fires begin to rage through your town? It always makes me wonder if the world would experience a year worse than 536 AD. With our massive populations there increases the number of atrocities and sacrifices made. Even if most of the world didn't survive I still feel like Australia, New Zealand, parts of Africa and S America would be better off as long as they didn't consume what resources they still had as the world tried to repair itself. It really bothers me that half of society expects this to happen at some point.
Well fire needs an ignition, and if you aren’t near a bomb there’s small chance of a fire starting. Also bunker down for 2 weeks, a week will still be unsafe. Within a month there would be almost zero risk of radiation except ground zero, and within a decade reconstruction should bring a society relatively similar to what came before. No mad max, no Fallout, no Threads bs, but it’ll be somewhere between covid lockdown and Wild West living. Rural areas largely self sufficient, cities undergoing massive construction projects, and trade will decrease along with travel.
Crawl out through the fallout, baby
When they drop that bomb
Imagine walking around after nuclear war with a t-shirt with "the past was the worst" on it...
Well the immediate past would have been much brighter. . .
I was really happy at about 5:00 mark where he mentioned the fallout would "only" be a threat for a few weeks. It's still nasty stuff but at least 80% of all sci-fi treats nuclear missiles like they render entire regions unlivable for decades instantly.
Nuclear winter in particular seems to get depicted as lastingdecades to hundreds of years as a result of nuclear winter.
Of course we'd still be in trouble but it would be the EMP and general destruction of all infrastructure we rely upon that's the more long term problem. Those long term problems do exist but it does make sci fi nuclear winter looks a lot more cartoonishly exagerated when all of them treat the nuclear winter and fallout as these boogymen that will forever haunt humanity.
We still don't want nuclear war but it's sometimes a bit irritating basically no one ever depicts the results of one even half accurately in media and just fall back on the same tropes.
Exactly, well put. Regarding Fallout, there is actually one kind of nuclear bomb capable of doing that, called a salted bomb. It is basically a nuclear warhead covered in cobalt 60. It would generate a fallout so radioactive that it is capable of rendering big areas unlivable for a couple of decades. Thankfully, no country ever produced such a bomb.
War... war never changes.
The book of Eli is actually one of my favourite looks at a Nuclear Apocalyptic setting as is A boy & his dog.
A Boy and His Dog...such a great film. Much darker than it first appears and often forgotten about these days.
I din,t belivie that anyone ever would ask that unthinkable question !
Basing it off media, the TV show jericho I feel described the first couple weeks after a nuclear war accurate if you lived in a rural town far from the blasts. Best case scenario for long term would be like prosperity from farcry new dawn. But not everyone will be living like that and will still try to take what you have.
Honestly such a scenario would not only be another extinction level event but would also be a total reset for humanity as our knowledge will most likely be lost and we would be back to square one
Good
Forget about knowledge, we could keep most books and STILL be unable to build the simplest of computers. Without large amounts of gasoline, long distance transport would be impossible. We would be unable to make steel. Even iron. Given a couple of decades for everything to rust we would go back to the stone age even if we had whole libraries and colleges full of teachers. Even under the best circumstances lack of gasoline would doom us within a few decades. And the circumstances would NOT be the best. We would be struggling to survive using equipment that could not be replaced while unable to educate a new generation to start from almost the beginning on just the knowledge that it COULD be done.
Even if a whole continent escaped untouched, it would start regressing immediately as its equipment and stores of goods run out or wore down. Too many resources would be unavailable, too much technology would have been lost elsewhere, there would be too much demand on the time of its engineers for them to be able to do anything but patch what they had.
Long Island NY here.. Recently, I went to a location that I thought couldn't exist out here given our geography and layout.. The parking garage at St. Francis hospital goes FIVE levels underground which completely blew my mind.. Living on the island, I thought you couldn't dig more than 15 or 20 feet before you hit the water table. Yet the bottom level of the garage is 50+ feet below ground. -- I've never felt more safe in my entire life. Especially in a location no more than 40 miles from what would be ground zero.
Yeah .. depends where you are on the Island (obviously, I guess). I lived in Freeport (Nassau County) for a while. It was a "Cape Cod" style house, with a canal in the backyard, and a half-basement that would flood every time there was a high tide and a full moon. Sometimes we'd be in rowboats going down the street like it was Venice. I doubt that basement could have been dug ten feet deeper without hitting water.
Then again, when in the basement, we were surrounded by concrete which itself was surrounded (at least partially) by *_many_* feet of water, which is an excellent barrier to radiation.
@@THE-X-Force -- yep. Most places on the island, you can't dig down too far.. And sometimes the water table can shift.. Friends of mine lived in Deer Park and when they built that outlet mall, the construction shifted the water table.. They went from never having a problem in 20 years, to 10 years of sheer hell.
Go watch a movie called "The Day After".
That movie sugar costs how bad things would get.
the UK made 'Threads' at the same time... that wasn't sugar coated
@@Alienalloy Threads is the stuff of nightmares.
Easy answer: The living would envy the dead.
More likely, Brandon should be shown to be piloting that missile, since he's destabilized the world in only three years.
Brandon is the missile. Notice how he walks and they freak when he falls. He has 20 lbs. of plutonium in his head. The ice cream keeps it cool. He has to eat it or he goes to whispering. The pressure relief. Just my opinion
Damn, so nuclear winter won't simply balance out global warming? Damn.
Futurama
Ha ha
Simon is enjoying the thought of North America perishing waaayy too much 😂
Ummm...Pretty crappy?
----
Dude,
Any "holes" in the earth's ozone layer aren't actually holes. They are patches where the ozone is thinner. They move around with the rest of the atmosphere, getting replenished by the ozone from surrounding areas. The end effect is that the ozone layer itself will become thinner in height over the entire earth, not a planet with various holes in its ozone layer
I always wondered what happened to that "hole" over Australia that everyone used to shriek about when I was a boy.
❤ Thank you Simon and the team x
One thing you also wouldn’t survive is Godzilla during the nuclear winter
Bar b qued godzilla tail and backstrap. Served on soft tacos with fire sauce.😅
Simon: you ever watch the film "Threads"? A well-done movie from the UK, it pretty much says it all. Actually, you might have mentioned it or covered it a ways back.
Recent research shows that in crisis situations humans tend to turn hard toward cooperation. So the roving bands of armed strangers is actually rather unlikely until we start to see severe resource shortages that would cause conflict. Even then it would likely be tribal conflict versus Farmer John and his small personal arsenal.
No mention of MIRV's? Each "Missile" has perhaps 6 to 12 nuclear bombs on the end, and they separate out before exploding. So "just" 3 rockets hitting an area will consist of at the extreme end - 36 nuclear explosions in a "small" area of maybe 20-80 miles.... ......
Up the Irons!! 🤘🏼 Nice to see Maiden getting some cred!
What depresses me is the amount of wildlife and animals would die in this Apocalypse of nuclear attack?
I've always wondered about all the nuclear power plants left unattended and/or damaged after a nuclear war. Would they not all melt down over time and spread radiation unchecked forever across the globe?
That is a detail most people miss. Power plants can potentially spew more radiation than bombs. And keep at it. So to the nukes we would add HUNDREDS of out of control power plants spewing radiation. I can easily see this making Europe uninhabitable.
nuclear plants have fail safe mechanisms so they should shut down automatically (unless targeted directly).
Unless the scram mechanisms or cooling systems are damaged then all bets are off. The technicians will probably have long since vacated to secure their own survival.
@theequilibriumist the folks that were once at ir around Fukushima might have a different opinion.
At this point, the Doomsday Clock is pretty much a joke. It's about as accurate as the crazy people who carry around signs proclaiming, "The End is Nigh!"
No, you apparently have no clue.
@@thomaskositzki9424 Really? The "Doomsday clock" has never been more than 17 minutes from midnight FOR 75 YEARS! At some point, you have to come to the realization that these predictions are next to worthless.
@@ABQSentinel You seem to not get the point. Let me explain to you: ever since we passed a global stockpile of around 1000 nuclear weapons, the threat is like every human on Earth had a 9mm pistol strapped to their heads permanently. And the leaders of the US, Russia and China hold the trigger to fire them all.
So we are at all times a mere 30 minutes preparation and flight time away from dying out. I would say the clock is pretty accurate.
The only way for the doomsday clock to get any further away from midnight is massive nuclear disarmament. There were good measures taken in the 90's and early 2000's but we sadly failed to reach save levels.
I just wanted to eat skittles
Then a nuke destroyed my city and all the others.
Skittles will carry you far. Almost elavate to the next what ever is next
Wait, the atomic clock was created by atomic scientists ? Imagine that… 🤦🏾♂️
Raymond Briggs, well known for his Christmas story "The Snowman" was also responsible for writing another cartoon feature, "Where the Wind Blows". During the 1980s we in the UK were treated to advice booklets about how to cope with nuclear attack. This obviously wasn't for city dwellers since it wasn't targeted at the 'total destruction' or 'heavy damage' zones but the outer zones of light or even no damage where the biggest danger was from fallout. Briggs's cartoon -- done in the style of "The Snowman" -- chronicles the life of an older couple who follow the Home Office's "Shelter in Place" advice per the booklet. It didn't end well. Worth watching. Bits of it, or even a complete version, can be found on youTube.
There was also "Threads".
Hilarious how you used a graphic of Donald Trump riding a missile, when he's actually the only president in the last 70 years to not start any new conflicts and actively work to de-escalate the ones we're in. Good one, beardo.
Exactly!!
Too bad that’s factually inaccurate.
My guess is that in the US, the military would immediately declare martial law and take charge of moving people out of what was left of the larger cities to the rural areas and smaller towns, so the farmer who met you with a shotgun would either become much more cooperative immediately or cease to be a problem after the military took care of the situation. There is a map out on the web that shows the likely targets, assuming (1) that 250 warheads are used (a limited nuclear strike) and (2) 2,000 warheads were used. Russia has about 6,000 warheads but most of these are in storage, hence the 2,000 worst case scenario. My smaller city is not a direct target, nor in the dangerous fallout shadow, so I would be likely to survive the initial blast. The biggest issue would whether we really had a nuclear winter or a nuclear fall - it is all speculation right now, and hopefully will always be speculation, but a severe nuclear winter would probably mean the death of 5 billion spread all over the planet, most from starvation. In some ways the lucky people would be those who died immediately. If it turns out that we have a nuclear fall instead of a nuclear winter, then the situation would be much better.
Link to the map?
The US military would be target number one for the nukes, not the cities. There wouldn't be much left of the US military.
@Peter Cohen The US military that would be enforcing martial law Iwould be the National Guard, that is part of the civilian world (thus spread out) rather than concentrated on military bases. I am not in the guard, but I am pretty sure they have procedures in place to handle something like a nuclear attack or major natural event, like a major earthquake.
"The military" is also located in major urban areas and their priority probably won't be to escort stupid city dwellers into nearby rural red states.
There will be no government, no army or national guard in the event of a full scale nuclear war, those few that survive the blasts and radiation will be all out on surviving from day to day.
@1:35. Hilarious to have the only American president in recent history to not start a new war being the one riding a nuke 😆 that's a good bit of satire 🤙🍆🤫
The BBC film Threads provides the most realistic look at a nuclear holocaust. It was the first to portray a nuclear winter in the aftermath.
One of the most terrifying films ever
The idea of a nuclear winter has been more recently replaced with the idea of a nuclear autumn - which isn't quite as bad. The nuclear winter was based on particulate/soot numbers from Hiroshima, but most of their buildings were wood.
Trump 2024 . Tennessee stands with you Sir . F.J.B !
F.D.J.T
...might play some Fallout later 😆
Yeah, we'll be fine. Just need to start collecting bottle caps now.
@@mwolkove I hope I turn into a Ghoul so I can talk down to all the survivors with my vast pre-War knowledge.
@@mwolkove Seems less likely as more bottles become cans.
The fact that the "scientists" who maintain this clock deem that in 1961 during the Cuban missile crisis, we were further from midnight on the doomsday clock than today tells you everything you need to know
Love how Simon acknowledged this is an America-centric video, but rather than using freedom units he still used heathen metric.
Quoting someone else. I think metric is just fine
Why does this sound completely horrifying and fun at the same time? Let's do this!
/sarcasm... Just in case the radiation poisoning has diluted your ability to detect such things