I'm far enough from NOVA and The Norfolk Shipyard to not be affected by the blasts, got the Appalachians as a shield from anything coming from the Midwest/West. I'd survive, it wouldn't be easy, though.
Another thing to keep in mind, tall buildings like skyscrapers actually limit the blast and mitigate thermal radiation (but not other forms of radiation). However, the real concern with nuclear explosions, radioactive fallout aside, are the firestorms that crop up: buildings burst into flames more often than explode, so sheltering in a building close to the blast will probably save you from thermal damage but will also probably cook you alive in a conflagration.
If it gives you any consolation, modern air-burst warheads release far less ionizing radiation than older ground burst warheads. It’s still going to incinerate everything within 5 km though. And that’s just the fireball.
This video made me think: Why must the entire nation (civilians) suffer based on how good or bad ONE PERSON (presidents, Prime Ministers and those types) speaks to another? Why don't they just duke it out on their own? I subscribe to a political Battle Royale, where if politicians are arguing so bad that war/conflict will happen, they get put on a remote island, filled with weapons, and last person(s) standing win.
I mean, at that point, you'll have people who rule based not on principle or policy, but on sheer strength. Everyone will elect the most capable combatant as opposed to the most capable leader.
Because people usually support these types of actions. People for example support giving tanks to Ukraine which is why a few politicians decided to do so. When people stopped supporting for example the Vietnam War, politicians decided to retreat.
That 1985 scenario was chilling, especially when Europe was nuking itself. Something about dropping a nuke on your close neighbor is confounding in a terrifying sort of way.
Do you guys realize why Europe is nuking itself? Because the countries that are there are Eastern Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary that was being nuked of the "reds" or Warsaw Pact to be exact.
17:41 as a German I can see now why my parent's generation was so scared of nuclear war. Dear God. It's so macabre that we would've been hit with the most nuclear weapons by far in all of Europe without even owning one missile ourselves. Goes to show how we would've been nothing more than a Battlefield or a weapons testing ground for the two most powerful super powers.
And you are at it again, thanks to the dumbest leadership in recent european history. and the green party is the most warmongering, of all. be scared dude. Germany is Kaput even without nukes.
Entirely avoidable concept altogether already in 1939.. However Germans had other gran designs, Ever since Poles were living with the specter of Nuclear annihilation as it was targeted by Both sides, but primarily by the West. Crazy times. Thank you
Same here, my family that lived in Berlin during WWII had some scary experiences when the city was bombed, hard to believe scarier things were possible in their life time. Nukes should never be used against other humans, all warfare is avoidable and evil.
Russias retaliation started way too late. Through satelites etc the US launches would get detected immediately which means counter attack gets started right away.
I would also assume the US and Canada would have planes in the air asap to jam, destroy, or intercept any potential bombers and icbm's, not let them launch in US and Canadian airspace with no problem.
No, that is accurate. The soviet land system does indeed have a longer response time, because it launches a signalling missile that activates the silos into retaliation, adding a big layer of time between detection and action
I have a terrible idea: Instead of a real nuclear war, the leaders of the conflict parties should each get a copy of that simulation and fight one another online using their virtual nukes. So they would have something to do for their ego and the rest of the world could applaud the winner, maybe give him some money or a new yacht and continue living.
edit your comment, remove "terrible" and put "safe" or "good", i really like your idea, there is no need to destroy your planet in real life if you have a very Realistically detailed game about Nuclear Wars
Scary and amazing! Back in the 1960s the Russians had something like 30,000 nukes and America perhaps 25,000. We figured it was only a matter of time until WW3 turned the whole planet into a lifeless ball of obsidian. Fortunately we've managed to avoid that but it's very interesting to see the various ways it plays out in simulation.
@@Len_M. They were decommissioned because they weren't needed. Older ICBMs had awful accuracy with your average American/Soviet ICBM having a CEP of 2 miles which meant they required larger warheads with a bigger yield to guarantee a hit. Nowadays we have ICBMs with CEP of around 100-200 meters which means warheads with below the megaton range are good enough to guarantee a hit while also having huge destruction levels. The largest nuclear device still in active service would be the warhead on the Dongfeng 5 Chinese ICBM which has a yield of 5 megatons. The next "closest" known (We don't know what Russian nuclear warhead yields are as they keep it a state secret) nuclear weapon would be the American B83 1.2 megaton bomb. The only actual super nuke that existed was the Tsar Bomba which was designed as a political tool rather than an actual weapon, though the Soviets and Russians did have a singular 25 megaton warhead for the R-36 ICBM that was active til 2006.
@@popaog6786 Indeed and let’s not forget how many Nukes that were accidentally dropped on the US and Canada. It’s a miracle that there wasn’t a nuclear incident. So it is good almost everything was dismantled and the material was used elsewhere.
Mind the differences between air and ground burst. Airburst: Detonates above ground creating massive damage but less fallout. Groundburst: Detonates underground (aimed at destroying silos, etc) less radial damage but massive fallout.
My maternal great grandfather was a Metallurgist of Nuclear Fuel and worked at Lawrence Livermore national laboratory on nuclear warheads. He told my mom that it was the best and the worst job. He knew that it was a matter of security and safety for the USA, but at the same time, it was a monster of destruction and he hated the fact that something so destructive was so necessary.
My maternal great grandfather worked as an electrical engineer under Dr. Lawrence. They might've known each other. He told a story about how there were rumors floating around the lab that the detonation of the first hydrogen bomb could cause a world ending chain reaction in the atmosphere, so he took his wife out on a "last night together" picnic on the beach, just in case. My stepdad's father was also a high ranking official in the navy and witnessed the testing. I was told it changed him. Small world...
a direct hit is the best you can get. its over in a blink of an eye. im 30 Km away from the nearest target. so i may survive but dont want to life anymore in a world like that.
@@000jimbojones000 I may not survive the blast, radioactivity, lawlessness or hell on earth if it happens but I'll sure do my best to try. I've never understood people like you. No matter what happens or how bad things get you should never give up until your last dying breath.
I remember speaking to a bloke I worked with who was ex Cold War era RAF. He said that his wartime role, was to decomtaminate the returning aircraft. I thought "That would have been pointless. There would have been no RAF airfields left in the UK".
The fallout around the missile silos is bound to be very high because they have to be ground detonations, thus lanuching especially lot of dirt and dust into the atmosphere.
Yes North Dakota is not a good place to be in any of these scenarios. Ground detonations don't affect nuclear winter much, they don't make much soot, but they absolutely do create fallout.
@Skrittles true... but in order to get to the fortified nuclear silos ground detonation is the way to go. An airblast does little to crack a missile silo
@Skrittles all counter weapons strikes will be ground bursts as will many other strikes against military targets. Half the warheads could be ground burst which means fallout for everyone.
You guys aren't taking into account the numerous cobalt devices on both sides. Google cobalt bomb. These are area denial weapons that will be used on all agricultural areas of both sides ( the entire Midwest). They are designed to produce excessive amounts of long lasting radiation. Truly the stuff of nightmares.
Imagine if there were more visual simulations, and a way to really see the destruction and the aftermath, and being able to alter the landscape with enough explosions, and buildings being destroyed. That would make this really addictive.
If even one country drops a nuke, they will all drop a nuke. I don't think people realize that. And if they do, they probably have themselves convinced that it won't happen to the place they live or they will somehow be unaffected. If nuclear war happens, the only lucky people will be the ones that are immediately vaporized. It's cool to see educational tools like this that show you the consequences.
You'd think they spread them better instead of hitting some cities with like 80 nukes. But I also thought in a mad scenario the retaliatory strike would launch before being even struck to get the full Force out.
They are accounting for our anti air systems. Not all of them will get through and some of the bombs may have mechanical failures etc so they are just making sure the target is dead dead.
Me too, but I think it accounts for maybe a delayed response because those in the bases can't believe it's real and not a false alarm, until the reports start coming jn
They are also accounting for the fact that some of the nukes will be shot down by our anti ballistic missile defenses so the reason they'll hit a big city with dozens of warheads is to assure it's complete destruction even if we down the majority of incoming enemy missiles.
This was recommended to me randomly and then I heard the intro of the guy saying “devildoggamer” and instantly remembered I used to watch this guy on my mom’s laptop when I was a kid. I’m 21 now lol.
@@catocall7323 some of us are. I was born in 92 to parents born in 52 and 53 respectively. Did hit me far harder when i was in my late 20s just how insane the power of even a 200kt nuke would be.
It doesn't make sense to spend time worrying about nukes when a few people can easily kill dozens in a single attack at any time or place (regardless of whether theyre Al Qaeda or a white christian in Uvalde, Texas). You're much more likely to die from a mass shooting than a nuke rn
wow, the most scary part of this was the waves of warheads, if it was just one big exchange and you survived that you might believe you have a chance to survive it all. But then a 30 mins later the next wave comes in and then another and another.... youd never know when it was over.
@@lv.99mastermind45 They were just fire crackers compared to what we have today. If a modern day 3.8 or 5.5MT bomb was dropped on hiroshima or nagasaki it would have been a very different story.
@@robinhood5627Just a note, don't forget that the effects radii are not directly proportional to weapon yield. Increasing the yield 100-times means cbrt(100)=4.6times increase in blast effect radius and sqrt(100)=10times increase in thermal effects radius.
@@snigie1 Every major country would be nuked, not just the US. And even if the US were the only country to be nuked, it's undeniably extremely powerful politically, economically, and militarily.
You also have to factor in the heights of detonation. That can determine the immediate destruction and the fallout radius. You also have the sea borne tsunamis of radioactive water that will blanket the coasts
Norway here, we sendt humanitarian aid to murmansk since 2003 until feb.2022. Murmansk is where the north fleet command of NewSoviet is located. Its a 3 world country, with drunk iliterates handling a UNmaintained nuclear arsenal..
Greetings from Australia. No house builds with basements in my country. Many years ago I used to think those preppers were crazy. Makes me want to build a bug out in my backyard.
Australia isn't currently on anybodies nuclear wish list as we don't have any nukes and we have a tiny army and we don't live anywhere near a nuclear power so we wouldn't get radiation blowing on us
@@CraigScottFrost Surviving the first day of nuclear fallout DRAMATICALLY increases your surival odds, not being underground or any shelter is pretty much a guaranteed death from radiation poisoning if your close enough the blast. Surviving the first week and month pretty much guerentees that youve survived the most lethal part of a nuclear bomb goes off, and if theres no ash outside and you have somewhat protective gear it should be safe to leave and find a better place. I can assure you, having a basement or survival bunker would be beneficial no matter how long you stay there.
@@gamertardguardian1299 You wouldn't survive anyway. Global crop failures will kill 10x more people due to starvation. You're kidding yourself if you think you can weather this senario.
@@samuelkrakow859 Society would collapse anyways, not like you'd get much from farms if you did survived. Its pretty unlikely that everyone would just die, even if civilian targets were striked aswell as tactical targets, there would be billions of humans in the world left. Millions of people on every continent would likely survive the first month even if they weren't in a fallout shelter or basement. The following months and years would be tough with nuclear winters and fallout spreading through the atmosphere, but it would be people like you that gave up that didn't make it. Most definitely survivable, maybe the odds are you dont, but it still is. Humans and most flora and fauna would survive as well even if you didn't count those in the oceans. Besides, food shortages are only a part of the battle, and it seems like around 5 years after a war would the soil become mostly uncontaminated for crop growth. Yes a nuclear war is really bad and would lead to global human collapse and mass deaths like we have never seen in recorded history, but is unlikely it would be our and mother natures end.
@@gamertardguardian1299 I think he meant you can't reach the bunker before the detonation , unless you live nearby the bunker and never have to travel for work and other daily chores. An ICBM can usually hit the target in less than thirty minutes , a hypersonic missile in fifteen minutes.
@@morbid747 Its a general rule that you have 10 minutes after the initial blast (if you weren't vaporized or to far away) to get to a safe place before a lethal amount of radioactive particles start to fall on you. With a warning, like you said would be an extra 10 minutes at least. And this is assuming your in the outskirts of the blast, not 50 miles away which if you were then you could likely flee to a better area if you wanted to. But yes that would be useless in that case if you were to far away from a safe place. But most people spend most of their day at home so it would be beneficial i think especially if the bombs dropped when you are at home or near some kind of underground shelter. I know it might be far fetched for some people, especially those who have a job centered around traveling, but for the average joe who works 9-5 and come home for the rest of the day I think a basement or some kind of shelter would be a good investment IF you think there could be a nuclear war involving your country in the future
My philosophy on Nuclear War is “I can’t do anything about it and would likely die in hours so don’t really need to worry about it.” Not much I can do about it so why worry. It would just kill me anyways.
Dude, you can do a lot of things, like protest, join the peace movement and demand disarmament , and nuclear regulations. its your and our problem, we keep saying boomers where the worst, but they did mobilize and did the greatest march in history both in the us and Europe, causing political pressure so the politicians did the nuclear treaties that America just scraped, we millennials and zoomers are indeed the worst. we just twitt and believe that is activism.
Actually this makes me think it's a LOT more survivable than most people think. An EBS warning would give a few minutes and that's enough time to shelter. Then a few days for the immediate fallout to subside. It's the weeks and months after that would be the most horrible, and that's where preparation makes all the difference.
No, typically you go to shelter as the missile is still in flight. By the time it goes off you better be ready. The reality is most people are going to survive a nuclear attack because very few places in America are super densely populated, which makes a nuclear attack difficult. The biggest threat is more the lack of supplies. You probably want at least a years worth of food for example, and probably a months worth of water, even if it is just a trash can filled with water and a filter. Take a look at the Beirut explosion, that's a good idea on what it will be like. On a larger scale of course, but not that large. Most ICBMs have a "total destruction" radius of half a mile.
If you are not inside and were not warned, it all matters where you are when the bomb goes off. The type of bomb, the payload of the bomb, the altitude it detonated, the altitude you are the humidity everything is a variable. At the onset of the actual detonation, the initial radiation released is variable to where you are in relation to the bomb. Like ig you are in a city and there are buildings between you and ground zero, you will not get the initial radiation exposure as you would if you were not shielded by buildings. Many nuclear weapons are air bust and detonated above the city for the effect of destruction from the blast wave. So the fallout you refer to is what occurs after the blast wave and radioactive dust/smoke particles are brought into the air and are spread with winds and such. Being in contact or inhalation or ingestion of said particles is the killer there, unlike the thermal and radiological blast wave of the initial detonation.
@@JonathanErwin I'm somewhat on the fence as to how dangerous fallout is. I mean by theory, yes it is bad if you ingest it, but I have a really old friend who was part of the early nuke tests and he got full exposure to the fallout of multiple detonations at various distances. The dude is close to 100 years old and doesn't have cancer or anything. Of course there is no reason to not take precautions with a respirator, disposable/cleanable outer garment and such, but I think radiation is less of a danger with bombs and alpha rays unlike say a nuclear power plant which is actively producing stronger gamma radiation over an extended period of time.
This game is now on my wishlist! Crazy! Love your videos! I am german, so I am dead. :D I always said: "If they launch nuclear weapons, I wish it lands on my head." Seriously. There is no scenario, where you are happy to be alive anyway.
True, the bombs are the least of out concerns, of course you would wish to die, to survive the main attacks, you would be facing your worst nightmares. Radiation fallout, shelter, medical care, medication, food, warmth, water. And that's just fending for yourself, let alone loved ones who have survived and are injured. Thank god they dropped the bombs on japan, otherwise there would be nothing to gage these weapons and the aftermath on. It'll happen one day for sure.
My luck is everyone I know and love would die instantly and I'd be left alive to die alone from radiation poisoning. Everyone should own a quick way out if ever need be ...
The southern half of South America will be untouched in a global nuclear exchange. I'll be sitting on a beach sipping a tropical drink when this goes down.
In other words, it is in every nuclear nation's best interest to "launch on warning" to avoid having its nukes disabled and no longer be a player in the game.
And you just described the hair trigger problem, there is not enough time between detection and strike for people to figure out if a warning is good or an error, fortunately it turns out humans will default to not pressing the button given the chance.
The movie threads isn't as realistic as we though it was back when it was released. We used to think nuclear winter would pan out like that but we now know differently. Particles would disperse and settle much quicker than what was previously thought. Enough particles wouldn't be able to get high enough into the atmosphere to reach the stratosphere where it could stay for potentially years. The dangers of nuclear winter was overstated but it's not commonly discussed because maybe it's good that most people think it would be worse than it actually would be. Don't get me wrong, the aftermath of nuclear wars would still be horrible and could potentially cause society as we know it to collapse. Many more people would die after the blasts than during. In the end I think it's better to overstate the risks than understate them and Threads is great and definetly worth a watch.
Recent study showed that nuclear winter isn’t as bad or long as it was predicted before. Likely most of the debris and dust will settle within a few weeks. it would be still radioactive, but no major winter that would block the sun for years. Good example is Mars: it gets way worse planetary scale sand storms, and the sand is finely dispersed.
This is the kind of “game” they should open source, or at least parts of it. It is a great start but the more scientifically minded will want to know how radiation exposure is being calculated, which weapon assemblies are being used, detonation altitude and EMP effects, missile defense sites, etc.
@survivalost1982 For the calculations try Carl Miller's model for fallout prediction. Tabulated data can be found in books. I have even circular slide rules from the times of Cold War. Maybe you would be interested in this website: glasstone.blogspot.com It's a pity it's a bit chaotic.
Longtime Beta tester here, you can change the day and it uses the weather from that day (in the past, I.E. wind direction and how fast its blowing) to change the direction of the fallout.
He’s right, surviving the initial exchange is the “easy” part, as if you don’t live near economically or militarily important areas, you’ll avoid the blast. The hard part is surviving the fallout, as he CLEARLY MENTIONED in the video
Can you add in factors like supplementing potassium iodide to negate radiation? That would be awesome if you could even control what the person is consuming
The simulators and games are very good for training; diplomacy, and overcoming fear or denial. As mentioned environmental damage I.e. nuclear winter is toughest to survive. The use of WMD's against fault lines, or to cause a tsunami, are presently relevant, but not included in the simulation. It is especially relevant regarding conflicts on the Pacific plate.
The nuclear winter is just a theory. Never been tested. Well actually it has been tested. Since 1945, several thousands nuclear bombs have exploded through military testing. There has been absolutely no effect on the atmosphere's temperature and sun light transmission. In a nuclear mushroom cloud, you have a ball of "fire " that dissipates within minutes and massive water condensation that quickly dissipates or falls down as rain. The dirt elevated from the earth is not that massive, and it goes down quickly. By comparison the massive volcano eruption in the Pacific last year, which lasted for days, released way more soot (orders of magnitude more) that the 10 000 nuclear bombs in the arsenals. And there has been no volcanic winter from it. Dont get me wrong a nuclear conflict would be tragic. The deaths from the flash burns, the wind blast, and the radiation fall out (most isotopes remaining for about 48 hours) would be a catastrophe. And by targeting cities, i e the most viable and strategic parts of countries, the targeted countries would be brought back hundreds of years. But those not touched by the burn, the blast, and the first 48 hours radiation (after 48 hours radiatiins would have mostly disappeared), will not live in a nuclear winter with no sun light. That is just bogus.
7:15 Russia has satellites and OTH Radar dedicated entirely to locating incoming ballistic missiles, so they should have responded about 1 minute after they detected mass launch. Systems are much better and much more accurate these days so there should be no question of mass launch anymore.
You assume systems are much better nowadays, but America didn't have the ability to send people to orbit for basically 10 years recently, and Russian Sojuz rockets seem to have more failures than in the past. Though you're probably right about detection capabilities.
That's the thing. They will be automatically detected within a minute , but it won't launch automatically. It would have to still be approved to launch a nuclear strike, which in reality could take time... The only automatic system that I'm aware of is the "Perimetr" system , which automatically launches nukes if it detects that the motherland has been successfully nuked. i. e. radiation levels of a nuclear blast, lost communications to the controlling center etc.
Outstanding tool and very well described by the author. The only little inaccuracy I heard was when he said "submarines are launching their Minuteman missiles..." US ballistic missile submarines carry Trident II missiles, the Minuteman missiles are land-based ICBM's. Thanks for sharing!
9:08 Nuclear winter was a hypothesis that was disproved under peer review only 4 years after it was initially published. It's not real. It's falsehoods and inaccuracies have been perpetuated due to their efficacy in generating fear in the population. If there was a strategic nuclear war it certainly would end much of life as we know it, but everyone that survives the first month would continue on living. The Earth would still be very habitable in areas not directly targeted. People living off grid in remote areas wouldn't even know anything happened.
You are correct. I had to search this up to confirm it, Sagan argued that nuclear winter is possible however the foundations upon which his research was based was indeed flawed.
I saw that Man in the High Castle scenario in your mods. I’d love to see that play out on this as well. Actually surprised how “low” initial numbers are compared to what I believed they would be. Seems most would die in the fallout and the ice age that’s brought on by nuclear winter 🥶
@@gobblox38 Bingo. You can survive a single bomb, even multiple nukes (like that one guy who was in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki), but you can’t survive no food.
Fallout from a blast in the missile silo areas would be worse because of a ground burst that would be used on hardened targets, it sucks up more debris in the fireball.
Nuclear winter is actually pretty survivable, you only start seeing widespread starvation around 150 teragrams of soot, which would require all major nuclear powers to fire all their weapons at cities, which have the most soot producing plastics to burn.
It would be cool to implement some things from universe sandbox to see what would happen to earth and would it even remain stable enough to let the people left survive.
we don't have nearly enough nuclear weapons to make any impact on a planatary scale. we can barely dent the biosphere. the planet is much more durable than our global civilization.
@@seb_le1652 most of the biomass dwells in the oceans. in the last several thousand years we've driven all wildlife and most of the plants out of our cities and surroundings. so the immediate nuclear explosions would do relatively little damage to the biosphere. the nuclear fallout will do some poisoning, but it's fairly short lived compared to nuclear disasters (hiroshima is bustling city while chernobyl zone is virtually inhabited). there is also an issue with the ozone layer being damaged by the hi-energy blasts but since the most likely scenario is that nuclear strikes are going to be concentrated to 5-8 areas on the planet - it shouldn't be more than 10% loss of the ozone layer. and it actually regenerates when phytoplankton - the main ozone producer - in the ocean gets more solar energy, which it will with less ozone. funny enough, if the nuclear war leads to a economical and societal collapse - there's going to be less damage to the biosphere in the long term...
@@russelljones3221 yea, though it would be pure speculation, since we don't even know that there are aliens out there, let alone what capabilities/behavior they have.
People frequently say that in case something like this happens they don't want to be living anymore. I think that is a bit short sighted. You will probably not die immediately from a nuclear war. Even just staying inside your home, keeping the windows and doors closed, wearing a N99 mask all day and assuming you have enough food and water you can pretty much stay alive indef. The fallout will settle down over time and you can start leaving your home and move to a better place. After a while military / other countries will come and get you out in a sealed tank.
you assume, there will be still a government and an economy in place after the war... in reality the worst part comes after the fall out ends, welcome to a mad max stile dystopia, NO TO WAR,
This. A nuke war is survivable, albeit unwinable. The US and Russia will come back within a decade or so after a full nuclear war. Population will be halved, it’d be an unrecognizable nation, but there will be some concept of our culture clinging to whoever thrives after a war.
No it's reasonable. Fallout and the collapse of logistics, industry, medicine and law ruin your chances of a future. Most people don't know how to avoid fallout, they wouldn't realise growing tomatoes in irradiated soil will give them radiation sickness. Rainwater will be laced with fallout, as water drains into freshwater sources it will carry fallout. Wind will carry fallout everywhere, the only reason nuclear disaster zones have been reclaimed is because of the removal of top soil. You can't grow food without removing the top soil and top soil is what contains suitable soil to actually grow enough food. Everything you can do to survive outside of a bunker will just get you killed, in weeks to month to years if you're lucky. Let's say you are lucky, you live in a remote location in a large country. You've got at most 30 years before the unavoidable fallout manifests as a cancer. Granted cancer treatment is often what makes it painful, but dying from an untreated cancer isn't any better either. Someone said half of the population will survive. They may be "Alive" but survival is going to be very tricky, over the next couple decades more and more people will be dying from radiation poisoning or secondary illness as a result (like previously mentioned cancers). Ontop of radiation, industry is gone. You can scavenge but eventually you'll need basic survival skills.
Did you ground burst that detonation on D.C? I think you did, for a couple of reasons - low casualty rate and high fallout. Ground burst are used to target missile silos and other hardened infrastructure such as bunkers. It causes very high fallout because of the debris that get irradiated by being sucked into the fireball. An airbrurst is what is generally used to destroy cities, as the blast effects are far more widely spread, destroying larger areas that aren't designed to resist being attacked like a silo or bunker is. If you'd airburst that detonation your casualties would have been far higher across a much, much larger area.
@@tigerpjmThe debris gets not only irradiated (induced radioactivity), but mainly mixed with fission products. These are usually more important. Also, their rate of decay is far easier to predict (7-10 rule).
Yep this isnt even accurate anymore. its still a 80s scenario when nukes where on the peak.... If you see that they could send a simple Drone bomb to engels a few weeks ago that destroyed planes there. You know that the shild in russia is damn full of holes. I dont even think that 10% of russias ICBMs even work if they got the same maintenance than their military since the 90s. The Fight in ukraine right now rly shows the state russias army is in. Its a pile of junk. Every shiny rocket they present on a parade is nothing more than propaganda diversion. If russia is rly that strong they could win that thing in ukraine in 2 weeks with ease. But they cant. Because they are phony.
the thing is that depending on the jetstream ETC the fallout could realistically just go into canada and not over the US if the jetstream is further north than usual
No shit lmao. That’s the first target or nuclear war. Depressing to know everyone would be killed for selfish politions. Like tf did I do to Russia or China or to the president of USA. Why can’t we just fight wars normally or use airsoft guns instead. It’s dumb.
The fucking absolute helplessness of learning that despite you living in a small town in a country with no nukes and a thousand larger cities, you're going to be hit directly in a value strike is really hitting me right now. My entire region was carpeted. And then flooded with fallout from the States. In a nuclear war I would die.
Nuclear war sim? Looks more like a Thanksgiving with my in-laws. The bomb is similar to a MOAB but named Mother-in-Law Of All Bombs. Now that I think about it, it explains why the turkey always looks like it was cooked in a reactor.
Wow I watched your channel several years ago when I was younger and I just stumbled on this out of nowhere. I’m re subscribing. TH-cam unsubbed me and I totally forgot this channel existed
@@MichaelDeSanta. I think everything about nuclear war is questionable. Given that it has never happened on this scale, something is bound to go wrong. This is why the Russians, for all their fanaticism, do not dare to use nuclear weapons.
I can say that this is a pretty detached from reality simulator. To many operable missiles at the same time, not counting (as it seems) any ADS, prioritizing not military targets, not a single cobalt (or other dirty) bomb and so on.
Has there been a simulator that shows the effect on a nuclear missile trying to hit its target after hundreds of other nukes have and are going off? lol. I can only imagine the disruptions in the atmosphere and the winds of hundreds of miles an hour in every direction. If any of these nukes rely on satellites, well they are also targets and the fallout would also disrupt them. My guess is many nukes would be flying off target.
@@m2heavyindustries378 nukes effects on other nukes. The first nuke detonation will emit an EMP burst that will deactivate all incoming nukes within range. To see a single target getting hit with dozens of nukes 5-50 seconds apart is laughable. Trying to get dozens of nukes to hit all at the same time isn't even in the playbook, lol. The fact is, never has multiple nukes been detonated at the same time near each other, I wonder why. The sophistication of the electronics and circuitry of a nuclear bomb are NOT hardened against an EMP burst.
@@RogueDemagogueThe only normal way to counter ICBMs is to use missile defense with nuclear warheads. ICBMs and warheads, by the way, are protected to some extent from radiation and EMP.
No, lol, they are NOT. The skin of an ICBM is so thin and UNPROTECTED, one actually blew up when a technician dropped a wrench on it. They aren't protected from radiation, which is stupid to say, nor are they protected from an EMP. It's the wind of the first detonations that will simply blow off course the other inbound nukes from their target. Ever see a missile flying through a hurricane? @@Andrew-stay
If you guys want a jist of how much of a bad time nuclear winter would be watch the movie Threads (1984). Get yourself good and depressed for the weekend. har har
Does it consider radiation released by nuclear power plants when they are destroyed or left unmanaged? Every simulator or prediction model I have ever seen does not.
Cool stuff, I have been following the development of this sim for about a year now, but the big question I have is how does this simulator handle escalation? Like lets say I send one tiny tactical nuke to Hong Kong as the US does China send only two nukes to me? Or does China go FULL total war immediately and launch a full strike at me? I would love to buy it for a dollar or even $5. but $30 is awefully pricey for a sim I know i will get bored of after 5 scenarios and then will only come back two once or twice a year when i get inspired to run a one off simulator when I get inspired by some movie or book. Also if i run the same scenario twice, is there any level of variation or will the consequences be identical?
Do you think you would survive a nuclear attack?
Would I want to?
I hope not
I'm far enough from NOVA and The Norfolk Shipyard to not be affected by the blasts, got the Appalachians as a shield from anything coming from the Midwest/West. I'd survive, it wouldn't be easy, though.
Nope. Don't have a bunker and preparedness.
But I'm not within the Target list.
I live in germany so not really :/
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play"
Too late for that now. The die has already been cast.
Kind of like in real life.
Hello Joshua
“…nature will begin again, with the bees, probably…”
-Dr. Stephen Falken
Not playing is not a move. And not playing after the adversary has made his move is the worst for your health.
Seeing all those individual missiles in the air really puts things in perspective
If you keep them in perspective long enough to get over the initial scare, you can start figuring out coping strategies.
if those missiles was money donations for the people....
Warheads, most ICBM's carry MIRV's.
We surely have more than what we’re shown
@@jonygmx4266 would you rather have people get money? or have nuclear missiles to protect your country
Another thing to keep in mind, tall buildings like skyscrapers actually limit the blast and mitigate thermal radiation (but not other forms of radiation). However, the real concern with nuclear explosions, radioactive fallout aside, are the firestorms that crop up: buildings burst into flames more often than explode, so sheltering in a building close to the blast will probably save you from thermal damage but will also probably cook you alive in a conflagration.
It's a nice thought.
@@thejoin4687 that's according to the data we have
If it gives you any consolation, modern air-burst warheads release far less ionizing radiation than older ground burst warheads. It’s still going to incinerate everything within 5 km though. And that’s just the fireball.
I think the blast would topple a skyscraper.
If not, the heat would melt the structural columns and it will topple.
There is no radioactive fallout from Airbursts
This video made me think: Why must the entire nation (civilians) suffer based on how good or bad ONE PERSON (presidents, Prime Ministers and those types) speaks to another? Why don't they just duke it out on their own? I subscribe to a political Battle Royale, where if politicians are arguing so bad that war/conflict will happen, they get put on a remote island, filled with weapons, and last person(s) standing win.
Cos politicians think they are worth millions of lives
I mean, at that point, you'll have people who rule based not on principle or policy, but on sheer strength. Everyone will elect the most capable combatant as opposed to the most capable leader.
Russia would get disqualified for cheating
@@Gannoh Not all, but a good majority of great leaders in history were exceptional combatants and strategists.
So it may not be THAT bad.
Because people usually support these types of actions. People for example support giving tanks to Ukraine which is why a few politicians decided to do so. When people stopped supporting for example the Vietnam War, politicians decided to retreat.
That 1985 scenario was chilling, especially when Europe was nuking itself. Something about dropping a nuke on your close neighbor is confounding in a terrifying sort of way.
It's like lighting your own house on fire to kill an intruder.
A bunch of liberals freaking out over nonsense.
Do you guys realize why Europe is nuking itself? Because the countries that are there are Eastern Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary that was being nuked of the "reds" or Warsaw Pact to be exact.
Also the scenario counts *EVERY* as value not just silos.
Chasing Dissent The INCREDIBLE Weight Of MASSIVE TALENT ! - ALL IN - 53
th-cam.com/video/vsERC_P4TVk/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=ChasingDissentOfficial
Guy you placed in Chicago died before Russia even launched ! Scarily accurate simulator.
Died from a heart attack finding out about a Nuclear War after eating a Pan Pizza, a Sausage, and a 6 pack of Busch.
@@robertsteinbach7325 Could of been worse, could of ordered a Salad then got Nuked, how pissed would of he of been then ?
Probably for caught in a drive by in real life
@@robertsteinbach7325 best last meal
@@robertsteinbach7325 Depends if he was eating in a back alley, he'd probably get shot before the heart attack.
17:41 as a German I can see now why my parent's generation was so scared of nuclear war. Dear God. It's so macabre that we would've been hit with the most nuclear weapons by far in all of Europe without even owning one missile ourselves. Goes to show how we would've been nothing more than a Battlefield or a weapons testing ground for the two most powerful super powers.
And you are at it again, thanks to the dumbest leadership in recent european history. and the green party is the most warmongering, of all. be scared dude. Germany is Kaput even without nukes.
Entirely avoidable concept altogether already in 1939.. However Germans had other gran designs,
Ever since Poles were living with the specter of Nuclear annihilation as it was targeted by Both sides, but primarily by the West.
Crazy times.
Thank you
Same here, my family that lived in Berlin during WWII had some scary experiences when the city was bombed, hard to believe scarier things were possible in their life time. Nukes should never be used against other humans, all warfare is avoidable and evil.
We a far closer now than our parents ever were during the most dangerous moments of the cold war. Many analysts believe the die has already been cast.
Danger still looming large over Europe:
th-cam.com/video/vdKO_zCkoyw/w-d-xo.html
Russias retaliation started way too late. Through satelites etc the US launches would get detected immediately which means counter attack gets started right away.
I’m assuming it was done that way to showcase both attack plans
how can you counter nuclear?
@@thenotorious844 You can’t, it’s just retaliation
I would also assume the US and Canada would have planes in the air asap to jam, destroy, or intercept any potential bombers and icbm's, not let them launch in US and Canadian airspace with no problem.
No, that is accurate. The soviet land system does indeed have a longer response time, because it launches a signalling missile that activates the silos into retaliation, adding a big layer of time between detection and action
I have a terrible idea: Instead of a real nuclear war, the leaders of the conflict parties should each get a copy of that simulation and fight one another online using their virtual nukes. So they would have something to do for their ego and the rest of the world could applaud the winner, maybe give him some money or a new yacht and continue living.
they should all just sort it out in pubg
edit your comment, remove "terrible" and put "safe" or "good", i really like your idea, there is no need to destroy your planet in real life if you have a very Realistically detailed game about Nuclear Wars
This is almost the same plot as LBX wars anime
Put every world leader into a match of tf2. Whoever wins wins the demands put forth in the war.
Am guessing that is what they did in a way, that is why it never materialized
Scary and amazing! Back in the 1960s the Russians had something like 30,000 nukes and America perhaps 25,000. We figured it was only a matter of time until WW3 turned the whole planet into a lifeless ball of obsidian. Fortunately we've managed to avoid that but it's very interesting to see the various ways it plays out in simulation.
We´re not in the clear yet, Russia is threatening nuclear annihilation yet again
All the super nukes were decommissioned and dismantled. There were insanely large Nukes.
@@fcgdaeh I really hate that my Country upset the World power dynamics by unwittingly giving Nukes to India and Pakistan.
@@Len_M. They were decommissioned because they weren't needed. Older ICBMs had awful accuracy with your average American/Soviet ICBM having a CEP of 2 miles which meant they required larger warheads with a bigger yield to guarantee a hit. Nowadays we have ICBMs with CEP of around 100-200 meters which means warheads with below the megaton range are good enough to guarantee a hit while also having huge destruction levels. The largest nuclear device still in active service would be the warhead on the Dongfeng 5 Chinese ICBM which has a yield of 5 megatons. The next "closest" known (We don't know what Russian nuclear warhead yields are as they keep it a state secret) nuclear weapon would be the American B83 1.2 megaton bomb. The only actual super nuke that existed was the Tsar Bomba which was designed as a political tool rather than an actual weapon, though the Soviets and Russians did have a singular 25 megaton warhead for the R-36 ICBM that was active til 2006.
@@popaog6786 Indeed and let’s not forget how many Nukes that were accidentally dropped on the US and Canada. It’s a miracle that there wasn’t a nuclear incident. So it is good almost everything was dismantled and the material was used elsewhere.
Mind the differences between air and ground burst.
Airburst: Detonates above ground creating massive damage but less fallout.
Groundburst: Detonates underground (aimed at destroying silos, etc) less radial damage but massive fallout.
Groundburst can be surface or subsurface.
There is also high altitude where the nuke is detonated in or near space for large radius EMP effect.
Modern thermonukes are very efficient at spending their fuel at high altitudes. They produce negligible fallout.
Some people cried, some laughed, Most were silent.. -Oppenheimer
I have become death, the destroyer of worlds.
Does this game have the Chinese spy ballon currently flying over Montana?
xD
And now a UFO flying over Canada. Ah, also China reported an unidentified object in its air space.
Its a weather balloon
@@AverageDayInside Is that why the Chinese were threatening retaliation? Because it was a weather balloon?
No but there are plenty of nukes dropping in china
My maternal great grandfather was a Metallurgist of Nuclear Fuel and worked at Lawrence Livermore national laboratory on nuclear warheads. He told my mom that it was the best and the worst job. He knew that it was a matter of security and safety for the USA, but at the same time, it was a monster of destruction and he hated the fact that something so destructive was so necessary.
My maternal great grandfather worked as an electrical engineer under Dr. Lawrence. They might've known each other. He told a story about how there were rumors floating around the lab that the detonation of the first hydrogen bomb could cause a world ending chain reaction in the atmosphere, so he took his wife out on a "last night together" picnic on the beach, just in case.
My stepdad's father was also a high ranking official in the navy and witnessed the testing. I was told it changed him.
Small world...
4:40 Your calmness while deciding where to drope the nuke is chilling
Needs a mod that adds the DEFCON music.
Still one of the best fitting soundtracks (if not THE best) in my opinion.
Reminds me of the 1983 movie WarGames.
Yeah I'm old.
Shall we play a game?
@@squintylizard hehe Good movie.
As someone who lives in the a small town, I was very surprised to see us get a direct hit from the 85 soviet strike plan. RIP
a direct hit is the best you can get. its over in a blink of an eye. im 30 Km away from the nearest target. so i may survive but dont want to life anymore in a world like that.
@@000jimbojones000 I mean you might survive in a nuclear silo, if you really want to live. As long as you have enough food and water...
@@korana6308 might be, but i dont want to live in a nuclear wasteland or underground for years. Its just not for me. If time comes it comes.
@@000jimbojones000 I may not survive the blast, radioactivity, lawlessness or hell on earth if it happens but I'll sure do my best to try. I've never understood people like you. No matter what happens or how bad things get you should never give up until your last dying breath.
@@000jimbojones000 don't be a woman jimbo, have the will to continue your species don't just puss out man
Shall We Play a Game?
I remember speaking to a bloke I worked with who was ex Cold War era RAF. He said that his wartime role, was to decomtaminate the returning aircraft. I thought "That would have been pointless. There would have been no RAF airfields left in the UK".
The fallout around the missile silos is bound to be very high because they have to be ground detonations, thus lanuching especially lot of dirt and dust into the atmosphere.
Yes North Dakota is not a good place to be in any of these scenarios. Ground detonations don't affect nuclear winter much, they don't make much soot, but they absolutely do create fallout.
@@petersmythe6462 Nuclear winter is a myth.
@Skrittles true... but in order to get to the fortified nuclear silos ground detonation is the way to go. An airblast does little to crack a missile silo
@Skrittles all counter weapons strikes will be ground bursts as will many other strikes against military targets. Half the warheads could be ground burst which means fallout for everyone.
You guys aren't taking into account the numerous cobalt devices on both sides. Google cobalt bomb. These are area denial weapons that will be used on all agricultural areas of both sides ( the entire Midwest). They are designed to produce excessive amounts of long lasting radiation.
Truly the stuff of nightmares.
Imagine if there were more visual simulations, and a way to really see the destruction and the aftermath, and being able to alter the landscape with enough explosions, and buildings being destroyed. That would make this really addictive.
If even one country drops a nuke, they will all drop a nuke. I don't think people realize that. And if they do, they probably have themselves convinced that it won't happen to the place they live or they will somehow be unaffected. If nuclear war happens, the only lucky people will be the ones that are immediately vaporized. It's cool to see educational tools like this that show you the consequences.
Watch the movie "Threads" for a horrifying brutal visual representation of what would happen
I hope you were thinking "educative"...
That's gonna cost you another 200gb in order to build all that and actually make it go boom. AND ALOT OF WORK AND MANPOWER😂😂
You'd think they spread them better instead of hitting some cities with like 80 nukes.
But I also thought in a mad scenario the retaliatory strike would launch before being even struck to get the full Force out.
They are accounting for our anti air systems. Not all of them will get through and some of the bombs may have mechanical failures etc so they are just making sure the target is dead dead.
Regular sized nuclear warheads won't destroy whole cities on their own, that's why so many are directed to seemingly the same place
Me too, but I think it accounts for maybe a delayed response because those in the bases can't believe it's real and not a false alarm, until the reports start coming jn
They are also accounting for the fact that some of the nukes will be shot down by our anti ballistic missile defenses so the reason they'll hit a big city with dozens of warheads is to assure it's complete destruction even if we down the majority of incoming enemy missiles.
@@busimagen but you also dont need to turn it to glass to the last road of the outskirts to destroy a city.
I was going to say "Oh, my city is fine", but then it took a direct hit from about 5 nukes in the second wave. :(
If you're interested, theres a really good "gam-ey" version of this called Defcon. And excellent strategic game, although very sobering.
Thankfully the game still has a small cult following. I play every now and then. Great game!
There's an android version of defcon called first strike, also the defcon deterrence mod is pretty crazy, adds mirvs and such
Another similar game called ICBM.
@@IsItZoltan That's a completely different game lol. First strike is on steam too.
This was recommended to me randomly and then I heard the intro of the guy saying “devildoggamer” and instantly remembered I used to watch this guy on my mom’s laptop when I was a kid. I’m 21 now lol.
for me that way to spooky to watch after being born in the 60's. the threat back in the cold war days was to me a very frightening time
It's becoming more frightening again the newer generations aren't as aware of the danger as your generation was
We've got 2 years tops...
It's happening now 100%.
Oppenheimer knew this day was inevitable.
@@catocall7323 some of us are. I was born in 92 to parents born in 52 and 53 respectively. Did hit me far harder when i was in my late 20s just how insane the power of even a 200kt nuke would be.
@@nunyabusiness9013 no. Lol
It doesn't make sense to spend time worrying about nukes when a few people can easily kill dozens in a single attack at any time or place (regardless of whether theyre Al Qaeda or a white christian in Uvalde, Texas). You're much more likely to die from a mass shooting than a nuke rn
weird youtube algorithm pushed this to me in 17 seconds, I havent seen you upload for ages man lol
wow, the most scary part of this was the waves of warheads, if it was just one big exchange and you survived that you might believe you have a chance to survive it all. But then a 30 mins later the next wave comes in and then another and another.... youd never know when it was over.
There's that infamous story of the man who survived both Nagasaki and Hiroshima getting nuked
@@lv.99mastermind45 They were just fire crackers compared to what we have today. If a modern day 3.8 or 5.5MT bomb was dropped on hiroshima or nagasaki it would have been a very different story.
@@robinhood5627Just a note, don't forget that the effects radii are not directly proportional to weapon yield. Increasing the yield 100-times means cbrt(100)=4.6times increase in blast effect radius and sqrt(100)=10times increase in thermal effects radius.
I'm ex British military 22 years service, and we refered to this as 'MAD' 'Mutual assured destruction'
Nobody wins!
I taught about MAD and the three tiered defense system in high school.
Everyone in the Southern hemisphere is watching the fireworks and chilling with our kangaroos and kiwis
Everyone in the southern hemisphere is suffering after the complete collapse of the world economy.
@@Galactipod I think we'll be OK without the yanks, you're not the center of the world
@@snigie1 so true
@@snigie1 Every major country would be nuked, not just the US. And even if the US were the only country to be nuked, it's undeniably extremely powerful politically, economically, and militarily.
@@Galactipod lucky nz isn't a major country, we'll just be riding our Kiwis on night and wonder what the fireworks on the horizon are
You also have to factor in the heights of detonation. That can determine the immediate destruction and the fallout radius. You also have the sea borne tsunamis of radioactive water that will blanket the coasts
Norway here, we sendt humanitarian aid to murmansk since 2003 until feb.2022. Murmansk is where the north fleet command of NewSoviet is located.
Its a 3 world country, with drunk iliterates handling a UNmaintained nuclear arsenal..
Greetings from Australia.
No house builds with basements in my country.
Many years ago I used to think those preppers were crazy.
Makes me want to build a bug out in my backyard.
Australia isn't currently on anybodies nuclear wish list as we don't have any nukes and we have a tiny army and we don't live anywhere near a nuclear power so we wouldn't get radiation blowing on us
@@TylerMarkRichardson China
@@justanamericandoggo6725 why would China nuke us in the case of nuclear war instead of using it on a more important target
@@TylerMarkRichardsonAustralia is the main deterrent that prevents China from invading south-east Asian countries
This just further affirmed my desire to build an underground fallout bunker 😅
@@CraigScottFrost Surviving the first day of nuclear fallout DRAMATICALLY increases your surival odds, not being underground or any shelter is pretty much a guaranteed death from radiation poisoning if your close enough the blast. Surviving the first week and month pretty much guerentees that youve survived the most lethal part of a nuclear bomb goes off, and if theres no ash outside and you have somewhat protective gear it should be safe to leave and find a better place. I can assure you, having a basement or survival bunker would be beneficial no matter how long you stay there.
@@gamertardguardian1299 You wouldn't survive anyway. Global crop failures will kill 10x more people due to starvation. You're kidding yourself if you think you can weather this senario.
@@samuelkrakow859 Society would collapse anyways, not like you'd get much from farms if you did survived. Its pretty unlikely that everyone would just die, even if civilian targets were striked aswell as tactical targets, there would be billions of humans in the world left. Millions of people on every continent would likely survive the first month even if they weren't in a fallout shelter or basement. The following months and years would be tough with nuclear winters and fallout spreading through the atmosphere, but it would be people like you that gave up that didn't make it. Most definitely survivable, maybe the odds are you dont, but it still is. Humans and most flora and fauna would survive as well even if you didn't count those in the oceans. Besides, food shortages are only a part of the battle, and it seems like around 5 years after a war would the soil become mostly uncontaminated for crop growth. Yes a nuclear war is really bad and would lead to global human collapse and mass deaths like we have never seen in recorded history, but is unlikely it would be our and mother natures end.
@@gamertardguardian1299 I think he meant you can't reach the bunker before the detonation , unless you live nearby the bunker and never have to travel for work and other daily chores.
An ICBM can usually hit the target in less than thirty minutes , a hypersonic missile in fifteen minutes.
@@morbid747 Its a general rule that you have 10 minutes after the initial blast (if you weren't vaporized or to far away) to get to a safe place before a lethal amount of radioactive particles start to fall on you. With a warning, like you said would be an extra 10 minutes at least. And this is assuming your in the outskirts of the blast, not 50 miles away which if you were then you could likely flee to a better area if you wanted to. But yes that would be useless in that case if you were to far away from a safe place. But most people spend most of their day at home so it would be beneficial i think especially if the bombs dropped when you are at home or near some kind of underground shelter. I know it might be far fetched for some people, especially those who have a job centered around traveling, but for the average joe who works 9-5 and come home for the rest of the day I think a basement or some kind of shelter would be a good investment IF you think there could be a nuclear war involving your country in the future
Fun Fact: the soviet motto of the nuclear forces was "after us - silence"
My philosophy on Nuclear War is “I can’t do anything about it and would likely die in hours so don’t really need to worry about it.”
Not much I can do about it so why worry. It would just kill me anyways.
Dude, you can do a lot of things, like protest, join the peace movement and demand disarmament , and nuclear regulations. its your and our problem, we keep saying boomers where the worst, but they did mobilize and did the greatest march in history both in the us and Europe, causing political pressure so the politicians did the nuclear treaties that America just scraped, we millennials and zoomers are indeed the worst. we just twitt and believe that is activism.
Actually this makes me think it's a LOT more survivable than most people think. An EBS warning would give a few minutes and that's enough time to shelter. Then a few days for the immediate fallout to subside. It's the weeks and months after that would be the most horrible, and that's where preparation makes all the difference.
@@carlosgarzon8900 What about Generation X, ? Everyone forgets generation X.
@@Victorseafog Gen x is so meh no one remembers them.
@@violetzitola8385 well yeah, but millions still will die man, COME ON!
So if a nuke goes off close, isn't there a short time window when u can go to shelter or travel to shelter before the fallout gets you?
No, typically you go to shelter as the missile is still in flight. By the time it goes off you better be ready. The reality is most people are going to survive a nuclear attack because very few places in America are super densely populated, which makes a nuclear attack difficult. The biggest threat is more the lack of supplies. You probably want at least a years worth of food for example, and probably a months worth of water, even if it is just a trash can filled with water and a filter.
Take a look at the Beirut explosion, that's a good idea on what it will be like. On a larger scale of course, but not that large. Most ICBMs have a "total destruction" radius of half a mile.
thank god im swiss, im not only not a target but also we have bunkers under every house
@@SVENY Finland seems to be well prepared too
If you are not inside and were not warned, it all matters where you are when the bomb goes off. The type of bomb, the payload of the bomb, the altitude it detonated, the altitude you are the humidity everything is a variable. At the onset of the actual detonation, the initial radiation released is variable to where you are in relation to the bomb. Like ig you are in a city and there are buildings between you and ground zero, you will not get the initial radiation exposure as you would if you were not shielded by buildings. Many nuclear weapons are air bust and detonated above the city for the effect of destruction from the blast wave. So the fallout you refer to is what occurs after the blast wave and radioactive dust/smoke particles are brought into the air and are spread with winds and such. Being in contact or inhalation or ingestion of said particles is the killer there, unlike the thermal and radiological blast wave of the initial detonation.
@@JonathanErwin I'm somewhat on the fence as to how dangerous fallout is. I mean by theory, yes it is bad if you ingest it, but I have a really old friend who was part of the early nuke tests and he got full exposure to the fallout of multiple detonations at various distances. The dude is close to 100 years old and doesn't have cancer or anything.
Of course there is no reason to not take precautions with a respirator, disposable/cleanable outer garment and such, but I think radiation is less of a danger with bombs and alpha rays unlike say a nuclear power plant which is actively producing stronger gamma radiation over an extended period of time.
Oh, hey 80's nightmares. I see you're back after such a long time.
you dont need a simulator, you can enjoy it live in 2-3 years
I hope so. The wasteland is gonna be 😎
fallout players were training for this moment for so long
This game is now on my wishlist! Crazy! Love your videos! I am german, so I am dead. :D I always said: "If they launch nuclear weapons, I wish it lands on my head." Seriously. There is no scenario, where you are happy to be alive anyway.
True, the bombs are the least of out concerns, of course you would wish to die, to survive the main attacks, you would be facing your worst nightmares. Radiation fallout, shelter, medical care, medication, food, warmth, water. And that's just fending for yourself, let alone loved ones who have survived and are injured.
Thank god they dropped the bombs on japan, otherwise there would be nothing to gage these weapons and the aftermath on. It'll happen one day for sure.
My luck is everyone I know and love would die instantly and I'd be left alive to die alone from radiation poisoning.
Everyone should own a quick way out if ever need be ...
The southern half of South America will be untouched in a global nuclear exchange. I'll be sitting on a beach sipping a tropical drink when this goes down.
@@nunyabusiness9013 I'll be there with a couple of blondes...i'll wave you over buddy!.
Fallout 4 real life
How can you get this simulator?
^
In other words, it is in every nuclear nation's best interest to "launch on warning" to avoid having its nukes disabled and no longer be a player in the game.
and the decision making window for russia is like 90 seconds because how close nato is.
@@JamesSmith-ix5jd That's pretty much how small the decision making window potentially is for every nuclear power.
And you just described the hair trigger problem, there is not enough time between detection and strike for people to figure out if a warning is good or an error, fortunately it turns out humans will default to not pressing the button given the chance.
Multiple times during the cold war controllers received false alarms and chose not to launch their own.
Watch the movie _Threads_ for a graphic representation of what a nuke war would realistically look like. Sobering is an understatement.
TUBI has it.
The Day After also. And Miracle Mile is a good representation of what would happen prior (social collapse).
Nowdays there's no time to panic, hypersonic tech and stuff like that would give you an approximate panic time of 5 to 15min before incineration
Threads is so realistic that it almost feels like a documentary spanning a whole generation.
The movie threads isn't as realistic as we though it was back when it was released. We used to think nuclear winter would pan out like that but we now know differently. Particles would disperse and settle much quicker than what was previously thought. Enough particles wouldn't be able to get high enough into the atmosphere to reach the stratosphere where it could stay for potentially years. The dangers of nuclear winter was overstated but it's not commonly discussed because maybe it's good that most people think it would be worse than it actually would be. Don't get me wrong, the aftermath of nuclear wars would still be horrible and could potentially cause society as we know it to collapse. Many more people would die after the blasts than during.
In the end I think it's better to overstate the risks than understate them and Threads is great and definetly worth a watch.
@@softan I'm glad you included that last sentence!
Recent study showed that nuclear winter isn’t as bad or long as it was predicted before. Likely most of the debris and dust will settle within a few weeks. it would be still radioactive, but no major winter that would block the sun for years. Good example is Mars: it gets way worse planetary scale sand storms, and the sand is finely dispersed.
That's because nuclear war is still not as powerfull as a 10 km killer asteroid.
This is the kind of “game” they should open source, or at least parts of it. It is a great start but the more scientifically minded will want to know how radiation exposure is being calculated, which weapon assemblies are being used, detonation altitude and EMP effects, missile defense sites, etc.
@survivalost1982 For the calculations try Carl Miller's model for fallout prediction. Tabulated data can be found in books. I have even circular slide rules from the times of Cold War. Maybe you would be interested in this website: glasstone.blogspot.com It's a pity it's a bit chaotic.
We need a simulation that takes into account the current weather.
Longtime Beta tester here, you can change the day and it uses the weather from that day (in the past, I.E. wind direction and how fast its blowing) to change the direction of the fallout.
"Nuclear war is pretty easy to survive." Yea, okay, hopefully I'll be able to take your word for it.
He’s right, surviving the initial exchange is the “easy” part, as if you don’t live near economically or militarily important areas, you’ll avoid the blast.
The hard part is surviving the fallout, as he CLEARLY MENTIONED in the video
Cant we just ban nukes like we did with chemical weapons?
This game is so realistic I can hear a missile coming straight towards my loca-
Are u ok?
Can you add in factors like supplementing potassium iodide to negate radiation? That would be awesome if you could even control what the person is consuming
These only protect you from Thyroid cancer, that’s all, not radiation
Potassium iodide only works against iodine. For the first few days, stuff like Np-239 would be way worse than iodine.
@@placeholdername0000Its also worthless against gamma rays and neutron radiation.....although both are usually most severe near ground zero.
Dude, I swear TH-cam's recommendation is something else...
The simulators and games are very good for training; diplomacy, and overcoming fear or denial. As mentioned environmental damage I.e. nuclear winter is toughest to survive. The use of WMD's against fault lines, or to cause a tsunami, are presently relevant, but not included in the simulation. It is especially relevant regarding conflicts on the Pacific plate.
The nuclear winter is just a theory. Never been tested. Well actually it has been tested. Since 1945, several thousands nuclear bombs have exploded through military testing. There has been absolutely no effect on the atmosphere's temperature and sun light transmission.
In a nuclear mushroom cloud, you have a ball of "fire " that dissipates within minutes and massive water condensation that quickly dissipates or falls down as rain. The dirt elevated from the earth is not that massive, and it goes down quickly. By comparison the massive volcano eruption in the Pacific last year, which lasted for days, released way more soot (orders of magnitude more) that the 10 000 nuclear bombs in the arsenals. And there has been no volcanic winter from it.
Dont get me wrong a nuclear conflict would be tragic. The deaths from the flash burns, the wind blast, and the radiation fall out (most isotopes remaining for about 48 hours) would be a catastrophe. And by targeting cities, i e the most viable and strategic parts of countries, the targeted countries would be brought back hundreds of years.
But those not touched by the burn, the blast, and the first 48 hours radiation (after 48 hours radiatiins would have mostly disappeared), will not live in a nuclear winter with no sun light. That is just bogus.
7:15 Russia has satellites and OTH Radar dedicated entirely to locating incoming ballistic missiles, so they should have responded about 1 minute after they detected mass launch. Systems are much better and much more accurate these days so there should be no question of mass launch anymore.
You assume systems are much better nowadays, but America didn't have the ability to send people to orbit for basically 10 years recently, and Russian Sojuz rockets seem to have more failures than in the past.
Though you're probably right about detection capabilities.
That's the thing. They will be automatically detected within a minute , but it won't launch automatically. It would have to still be approved to launch a nuclear strike, which in reality could take time... The only automatic system that I'm aware of is the "Perimetr" system , which automatically launches nukes if it detects that the motherland has been successfully nuked. i. e. radiation levels of a nuclear blast, lost communications to the controlling center etc.
Outstanding tool and very well described by the author. The only little inaccuracy I heard was when he said "submarines are launching their Minuteman missiles..." US ballistic missile submarines carry Trident II missiles, the Minuteman missiles are land-based ICBM's. Thanks for sharing!
I love how excited you get and the language you use. Nuclear war, so fun!
I bought this on Steam and your video has helped me to understand how to use this software. Thankyou.
Which is it?
9:08 Nuclear winter was a hypothesis that was disproved under peer review only 4 years after it was initially published. It's not real. It's falsehoods and inaccuracies have been perpetuated due to their efficacy in generating fear in the population. If there was a strategic nuclear war it certainly would end much of life as we know it, but everyone that survives the first month would continue on living. The Earth would still be very habitable in areas not directly targeted. People living off grid in remote areas wouldn't even know anything happened.
You are correct. I had to search this up to confirm it, Sagan argued that nuclear winter is possible however the foundations upon which his research was based was indeed flawed.
Probably quicker than waiting on Bethesda
I saw that Man in the High Castle scenario in your mods. I’d love to see that play out on this as well. Actually surprised how “low” initial numbers are compared to what I believed they would be. Seems most would die in the fallout and the ice age that’s brought on by nuclear winter 🥶
I think most deaths would come from the destruction of infrastructure. Food and clean water would be very scarce.
@@gobblox38
Bingo. You can survive a single bomb, even multiple nukes (like that one guy who was in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki), but you can’t survive no food.
@@jesusofbullets no food, water, medical supplies, electricity, etc.
Most would die from lack of medicine, medical care, clean water, access to food, civil unrest, etc.
Threads is a good movie
What is this app? Can you provide a link?
It can be purchased off of steam
Question is there some kind of Simulator like this but only With Military War without nukes where the Player can just lean back and enjoy the Show? :D
theres a game called Superpower 2 that's similar to this, but you have to control the economy and politics and alliances
Fallout from a blast in the missile silo areas would be worse because of a ground burst that would be used on hardened targets, it sucks up more debris in the fireball.
Nuclear winter is actually pretty survivable, you only start seeing widespread starvation around 150 teragrams of soot, which would require all major nuclear powers to fire all their weapons at cities, which have the most soot producing plastics to burn.
You are just saying that because part of you wants to live in the Fallout game in real life lol
Even if those fires happened, the smoke would result in precipitation and get washed out.
Us aussie are just down here like "wtf mate"
China would destroy Australia, they see it as a vassal state of the US
It would be cool to implement some things from universe sandbox to see what would happen to earth and would it even remain stable enough to let the people left survive.
we don't have nearly enough nuclear weapons to make any impact on a planatary scale. we can barely dent the biosphere. the planet is much more durable than our global civilization.
@@baburik I'm fairly sure a nuclear war would make more than just a dent in the biosphere but ok
@@seb_le1652 most of the biomass dwells in the oceans. in the last several thousand years we've driven all wildlife and most of the plants out of our cities and surroundings. so the immediate nuclear explosions would do relatively little damage to the biosphere. the nuclear fallout will do some poisoning, but it's fairly short lived compared to nuclear disasters (hiroshima is bustling city while chernobyl zone is virtually inhabited). there is also an issue with the ozone layer being damaged by the hi-energy blasts but since the most likely scenario is that nuclear strikes are going to be concentrated to 5-8 areas on the planet - it shouldn't be more than 10% loss of the ozone layer. and it actually regenerates when phytoplankton - the main ozone producer - in the ocean gets more solar energy, which it will with less ozone. funny enough, if the nuclear war leads to a economical and societal collapse - there's going to be less damage to the biosphere in the long term...
Interplanetary war scenarios would be interesting
@@russelljones3221 yea, though it would be pure speculation, since we don't even know that there are aliens out there, let alone what capabilities/behavior they have.
I didn’t realize that this was DDG when I clicked on this video, and that intro just sent me back a few years, holy shit
Im watching this and thinking to myself "wow, we have come a long way since Wargames" lol.
The best move is not to play. Greetings Professor Faulkin.
People frequently say that in case something like this happens they don't want to be living anymore. I think that is a bit short sighted. You will probably not die immediately from a nuclear war. Even just staying inside your home, keeping the windows and doors closed, wearing a N99 mask all day and assuming you have enough food and water you can pretty much stay alive indef. The fallout will settle down over time and you can start leaving your home and move to a better place. After a while military / other countries will come and get you out in a sealed tank.
@@1ycan i was referring to people around me which definitely have the resources for food, water and masks.
you assume, there will be still a government and an economy in place after the war... in reality the worst part comes after the fall out ends, welcome to a mad max stile dystopia, NO TO WAR,
This. A nuke war is survivable, albeit unwinable. The US and Russia will come back within a decade or so after a full nuclear war. Population will be halved, it’d be an unrecognizable nation, but there will be some concept of our culture clinging to whoever thrives after a war.
And if you live in the Southern hemisphere you just have to go hungry for a bit there will be no bombs no radiation just a drop in 1.7 C
No it's reasonable.
Fallout and the collapse of logistics, industry, medicine and law ruin your chances of a future.
Most people don't know how to avoid fallout, they wouldn't realise growing tomatoes in irradiated soil will give them radiation sickness. Rainwater will be laced with fallout, as water drains into freshwater sources it will carry fallout.
Wind will carry fallout everywhere, the only reason nuclear disaster zones have been reclaimed is because of the removal of top soil. You can't grow food without removing the top soil and top soil is what contains suitable soil to actually grow enough food.
Everything you can do to survive outside of a bunker will just get you killed, in weeks to month to years if you're lucky. Let's say you are lucky, you live in a remote location in a large country. You've got at most 30 years before the unavoidable fallout manifests as a cancer. Granted cancer treatment is often what makes it painful, but dying from an untreated cancer isn't any better either.
Someone said half of the population will survive. They may be "Alive" but survival is going to be very tricky, over the next couple decades more and more people will be dying from radiation poisoning or secondary illness as a result (like previously mentioned cancers). Ontop of radiation, industry is gone. You can scavenge but eventually you'll need basic survival skills.
Did you ground burst that detonation on D.C?
I think you did, for a couple of reasons - low casualty rate and high fallout.
Ground burst are used to target missile silos and other hardened infrastructure such as bunkers. It causes very high fallout because of the debris that get irradiated by being sucked into the fireball.
An airbrurst is what is generally used to destroy cities, as the blast effects are far more widely spread, destroying larger areas that aren't designed to resist being attacked like a silo or bunker is.
If you'd airburst that detonation your casualties would have been far higher across a much, much larger area.
Can you customize your nuclear ICBM I want one that says let’s go Brandon.
@@shockcat5988
Thanks for letting us know.
@@tigerpjmThe debris gets not only irradiated (induced radioactivity), but mainly mixed with fission products. These are usually more important. Also, their rate of decay is far easier to predict (7-10 rule).
7:16 bro Engels airbase got hit with like 100 nukes
Yep this isnt even accurate anymore. its still a 80s scenario when nukes where on the peak.... If you see that they could send a simple Drone bomb to engels a few weeks ago that destroyed planes there. You know that the shild in russia is damn full of holes. I dont even think that 10% of russias ICBMs even work if they got the same maintenance than their military since the 90s. The Fight in ukraine right now rly shows the state russias army is in. Its a pile of junk. Every shiny rocket they present on a parade is nothing more than propaganda diversion. If russia is rly that strong they could win that thing in ukraine in 2 weeks with ease. But they cant. Because they are phony.
I heard that’s where Russia has their most bombers and SU57s their too
the thing is that depending on the jetstream ETC the fallout could realistically just go into canada and not over the US if the jetstream is further north than usual
i mean the jetstream did just recently collapse so i wouldnt count on that
Well thanks, I live in DC and you practically dropped the bomb directly on my job lol.
No shit lmao.
That’s the first target or nuclear war.
Depressing to know everyone would be killed for selfish politions.
Like tf did I do to Russia or China or to the president of USA.
Why can’t we just fight wars normally or use airsoft guns instead.
It’s dumb.
I'm moving to Africa from the u.k after watching this
Africa is the last place you want to be, in war or "peace".
@user-jj3fv6be3j not if its not going to be nuked
africa is already in the UK lmao
@@DaveSmith-cp5kj africa is literally the best place. Racist
@@AAA310What?
The fucking absolute helplessness of learning that despite you living in a small town in a country with no nukes and a thousand larger cities, you're going to be hit directly in a value strike is really hitting me right now. My entire region was carpeted. And then flooded with fallout from the States. In a nuclear war I would die.
Perhaps living in South America is not so bad.
We've GOT to stick up for democracy though, even if it comes to this. Ukraine is worth it.
@@thecandyman9308 You, uh, respond to the wrong comment?
Hi, always pray for conversion.
No nuclear war.
Job 36(DRB)
36:19. Lay down thy greatness without
tribulation, and all the mighty of
strength.
I guess from this simulation i can say...we will never understand why
Because why not?
You'll never even know what killed you.
@@nunyabusiness9013 Most people will survive the initial blasts so he probably will know what kills him. The vast majority would die in the aftermath.
Loved the video devildog. Would be interested to see the nuke in Ukraine senario play out. You're right, it is scary how indepth and accurate this is.
Not that accurate nobody knows what quantity quality nukes each country has in stock it's classified.
The last video game I was into I was sweeping a mansion of zombies in the 90s.. where do you get this game?
Nuclear war sim? Looks more like a Thanksgiving with my in-laws.
The bomb is similar to a MOAB but named Mother-in-Law Of All Bombs. Now that
I think about it, it explains why the turkey always looks like it was cooked in a reactor.
"the whole world dies" nah just russia, europe and the US.
Wow I watched your channel several years ago when I was younger and I just stumbled on this out of nowhere. I’m re subscribing. TH-cam unsubbed me and I totally forgot this channel existed
if america launched all its silo based missels, russia would probably redirect their missels to alternative targets
Questionable if they would have the ability to do this so fast.
@@MichaelDeSanta. I think everything about nuclear war is questionable. Given that it has never happened on this scale, something is bound to go wrong. This is why the Russians, for all their fanaticism, do not dare to use nuclear weapons.
anyone here remember the game DEFCON?
I do, outstanding piece of game work even to date (to my knowledge, at least).
Good job placing the people during ‘mutual distraction’ NY, LA (my home) Miami. Glad we were included in your experiment😂😂😂❤
Can't wait for the real life version
I can wait
Let’s GO!!! 😂
I can say that this is a pretty detached from reality simulator. To many operable missiles at the same time, not counting (as it seems) any ADS, prioritizing not military targets, not a single cobalt (or other dirty) bomb and so on.
Has there been a simulator that shows the effect on a nuclear missile trying to hit its target after hundreds of other nukes have and are going off? lol. I can only imagine the disruptions in the atmosphere and the winds of hundreds of miles an hour in every direction. If any of these nukes rely on satellites, well they are also targets and the fallout would also disrupt them. My guess is many nukes would be flying off target.
Sure bud, put money where mouth is and come up with a better one yeah?
@@m2heavyindustries378 nukes effects on other nukes. The first nuke detonation will emit an EMP burst that will deactivate all incoming nukes within range. To see a single target getting hit with dozens of nukes 5-50 seconds apart is laughable. Trying to get dozens of nukes to hit all at the same time isn't even in the playbook, lol. The fact is, never has multiple nukes been detonated at the same time near each other, I wonder why. The sophistication of the electronics and circuitry of a nuclear bomb are NOT hardened against an EMP burst.
@@RogueDemagogueThe only normal way to counter ICBMs is to use missile defense with nuclear warheads. ICBMs and warheads, by the way, are protected to some extent from radiation and EMP.
No, lol, they are NOT. The skin of an ICBM is so thin and UNPROTECTED, one actually blew up when a technician dropped a wrench on it. They aren't protected from radiation, which is stupid to say, nor are they protected from an EMP. It's the wind of the first detonations that will simply blow off course the other inbound nukes from their target. Ever see a missile flying through a hurricane? @@Andrew-stay
wow how fun there is so much fun to be had with this game for the whole family old and young so wholesome.
Sweet release. No more fighting, no more suffering, just silence like the rest of the dead planets around us. #prayfortheend
An interesting game. I'd wonder how well they simulated weather modeling. Also,
Roentgen: "r-ONT-gun"
Dumb, yes, but that's how it's pronounced.
Shazam! You made it seem so easy and even entertaining! Computers are so wonderful!
All those faces from that AI art shit lol
If you guys want a jist of how much of a bad time nuclear winter would be watch the movie Threads (1984). Get yourself good and depressed for the weekend. har har
I'll check it out, always love me a good British movie!
Nuclear winter is fake theory
Does it consider radiation released by nuclear power plants when they are destroyed or left unmanaged? Every simulator or prediction model I have ever seen does not.
Nuclear winter yeah.
Is it a program you got to buy or is it open online?
Modern nukes dont have fallout like that though, it's no longer the 60s...
Looks like fancy firework to me with this simulation
I'm not a gamer but would love to explore this game. How/where do I access it?
Cool stuff, I have been following the development of this sim for about a year now, but the big question I have is how does this simulator handle escalation? Like lets say I send one tiny tactical nuke to Hong Kong as the US does China send only two nukes to me? Or does China go FULL total war immediately and launch a full strike at me? I would love to buy it for a dollar or even $5. but $30 is awefully pricey for a sim I know i will get bored of after 5 scenarios and then will only come back two once or twice a year when i get inspired to run a one off simulator when I get inspired by some movie or book.
Also if i run the same scenario twice, is there any level of variation or will the consequences be identical?
Sorry to bother but do you know the name of the simulator been looking for the name to no avail
@8:27 Where is that central volley occurring you will see one solitary device barreling due south for what I guess is White Sands?