And there's no way anybody could rebuild from that
They could rebuild but it would take decades to even centuries to bounce back what is considered "normal".

Also not even talk about the the nuclear winter that will block the northern atmosphere from the Sun
 
They could rebuild but it would take decades to even centuries to bounce back what is considered "normal".

Also not even talk about the the nuclear winter that will block the northern atmosphere from the Sun
Which like in Threads will make growing crops impossible
 
Will the nuclear powers follow a strategy (if I die, I will not die alone) or will they only strike the nuclear states of each other?

The second option is the possible scenario

look, lets just start with the basics because i have read this thread and i'd like to know where you get the idea that only the USSR and USA would just exchange nukes and that would be it. No, this is a war scenario. Any reason for launching the nukes would be to take out the opposition. Both the tactical and strategic use of nuclear weapons doesn't narrow the use down to just the major cities and the nuclear arsenal of the opposing nuclear power. If the attack is started, all will be started, not just the nuclear exchange. So, it will not be USA vs USSR but it will be NATO vs Warsaw pact and potential allies(like Australia for NATO and North Korea for Warsaw Pact). Believe me when i say nukes will fall on all those countires as well, but not in the first nuclear exchange, but once the war starts. Because nuclear war is not the exchange of nuclear weapons, it is also what comes after it, invasion. Don't you think they will go "Well we have used hundreds of nukes already, why not a couple more?" world has gone to shit anyway with most major cities in Europe, USA, USSR, Japan(definitely) and Canada gone, so if the enemy keeps resisting or starts executing their military war plans, one must do what you can to counter it, including the use of nukes. After the first nuclear exchange there will be plenty of nukes to go around, plenty of ways for delivery too. Nukes as a tactical weapon to destroy defenses and formations is an inevitability. The question is of course when will this war stop. There could be shock and awe at first, perhaps, but there are more nuclear powers, who knows how they'd respond?

bottomline is, so much destruction, will play havoc with the global ecology, killing more people than the initial blasts, fires and radiation.
 
Yes. A million Hiroshimas worth of explosions and poison. To think you could recover or even thrive is delusional.
Yeah, I didn't say it was going to be easy or even implied to thrive mate.

I say in a previous comment it would take decades to centuries to recover back to civilization and I had mentioned that they're going to have a Massive refugee crisis across the World from Nuclear Winter.

That isn't thieving but surviving
 
Japan was hit with nuclear bombs and its civilization did not collapse

I don't see a reason why that would happen to the rest

(For example, why do Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Portugal, or Spain go nuclear while they are neutral? So do the Middle East, East Asia, Australia, New Zealand, or even)

So the end of civilization is still exaggerated madness
New zea
look, lets just start with the basics because i have read this thread and i'd like to know where you get the idea that only the USSR and USA would just exchange nukes and that would be it. No, this is a war scenario. Any reason for launching the nukes would be to take out the opposition. Both the tactical and strategic use of nuclear weapons doesn't narrow the use down to just the major cities and the nuclear arsenal of the opposing nuclear power. If the attack is started, all will be started, not just the nuclear exchange. So, it will not be USA vs USSR but it will be NATO vs Warsaw pact and potential allies(like Australia for NATO and North Korea for Warsaw Pact). Believe me when i say nukes will fall on all those countires as well, but not in the first nuclear exchange, but once the war starts. Because nuclear war is not the exchange of nuclear weapons, it is also what comes after it, invasion. Don't you think they will go "Well we have used hundreds of nukes already, why not a couple more?" world has gone to shit anyway with most major cities in Europe, USA, USSR, Japan(definitely) and Canada gone, so if the enemy keeps resisting or starts executing their military war plans, one must do what you can to counter it, including the use of nukes. After the first nuclear exchange there will be plenty of nukes to go around, plenty of ways for delivery too. Nukes as a tactical weapon to destroy defenses and formations is an inevitability. The question is of course when will this war stop. There could be shock and awe at first, perhaps, but there are more nuclear powers, who knows how they'd respond?

bottomline is, so much destruction, will play havoc with the global ecology, killing more people than the initial blasts, fires and radiation.
THANK YOU. I seriously do not see what is so controversial about this. Nukes, hundress of times more powerful than Hiroshima, would spread poison and contamination not just on their targets but in neighbouring nations and beyond. Huge dust clouds of irradiated matter would drift across the world. Trade would cease. Food would run out, either burned, poisoned, or useless stuck far from where its needed. These things don't respect neutrality. The idea that Switzerland for example, sandwiched between three nato members, would not suffer massive damage from fallout, airborne contamination, hordes of desperate refugees and no one to import food from is so delusional as to be offensive.
 
Yeah, I didn't say it was going to be easy or even implied to thrive mate.

I say in a previous comment it would take decades to centuries to recover back to civilization and I had mentioned that they're going to have a Massive refugee crisis across the World from Nuclear Winter.

That isn't thieving but surviving
I'm agreeing with you :)
 
lets not get in over our heads though people. its not like a handfull of nukes is going to destroy civilization, there need to be a lot of them, like really a lot. Maybe we should all discuss more about the possibility of that happening then if the consequences will be as severe as we are saying. Because, the leaders of the nuclear arsenals are still only human and i personally don't think nukes will ever be used again since you can only use them as a bluff and not for real since there is no gain at all. The only gain you can get is if the rest of you "military operation" will go smoothly. and even then you'll just be king of the global dustbowl. As i said, its not just about the nuclear exchange.
 

ahmedali

Banned
look, lets just start with the basics because i have read this thread and i'd like to know where you get the idea that only the USSR and USA would just exchange nukes and that would be it. No, this is a war scenario. Any reason for launching the nukes would be to take out the opposition. Both the tactical and strategic use of nuclear weapons doesn't narrow the use down to just the major cities and the nuclear arsenal of the opposing nuclear power. If the attack is started, all will be started, not just the nuclear exchange. So, it will not be USA vs USSR but it will be NATO vs Warsaw pact and potential allies(like Australia for NATO and North Korea for Warsaw Pact). Believe me when i say nukes will fall on all those countires as well, but not in the first nuclear exchange, but once the war starts. Because nuclear war is not the exchange of nuclear weapons, it is also what comes after it, invasion. Don't you think they will go "Well we have used hundreds of nukes already, why not a couple more?" world has gone to shit anyway with most major cities in Europe, USA, USSR, Japan(definitely) and Canada gone, so if the enemy keeps resisting or starts executing their military war plans, one must do what you can to counter it, including the use of nukes. After the first nuclear exchange there will be plenty of nukes to go around, plenty of ways for delivery too. Nukes as a tactical weapon to destroy defenses and formations is an inevitability. The question is of course when will this war stop. There could be shock and awe at first, perhaps, but there are more nuclear powers, who knows how they'd respond?

bottomline is, so much destruction, will play havoc with the global ecology, killing more people than the initial blasts, fires and radiation.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense

Most European countries are central, so the bombing of capitals is more than enough for countries to collapse if the heads of government are cut off

Add to this that there are neutral countries such as Scandinavia, Iberia, Yugoslavia, all Africa and the Middle East, and striking them with nuclear is just an unnecessary drain.

When more US bombing is a much more practical option

So sorry this won't happen

I find this idea from the simple fact that NATO and Warsaw depend on a greater force than them (the Soviets and the Americans).

And if the Soviets succeeded in destroying America, there is no reason to make Europe nuclear, because without America to protect them, conventional war is a more practical option.

The opposite is true for Americans
 
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense

Most European countries are central, so the bombing of capitals is more than enough for countries to collapse if the heads of government are cut off

Add to this that there are neutral countries such as Scandinavia, Iberia, Yugoslavia, all Africa and the Middle East, and striking them with nuclear is just an unnecessary drain.

When more US bombing is a much more practical option

So sorry this won't happen

I find this idea from the simple fact that NATO and Warsaw depend on a greater force than them (the Soviets and the Americans).

And if the Soviets succeeded in destroying America, there is no reason to make Europe nuclear, because without America to protect them, conventional war is a more practical option.

The opposite is true for Americans
You do realise that bombing America involves bombing American forces which mean bombing American bases which means hitting Europe? Refer to the post I made earlier. There were hundreds, literally hundres of us bases in Europe.
 
Add to this that there are neutral countries such as Scandinavia, Iberia, Yugoslavia, all Africa and the Middle East, and striking them with nuclear is just an unnecessary drain.
The war plan Seven Days to the Rhine shows the Soviets nuking Vienna.

You know. A neutral capital.

And even if there weren't any US bases in western Europe, there are NATO bases and the countries' own bases. And even if they weren't hit all of the radiation, fallout, fires, refugees, civil unrest, ash, economic collapse, and so many other issues aren't going to go "oops! Switzerland's neutral, let's go around, guys!"
 
The war plan Seven Days to the Rhine shows the Soviets nuking Vienna.

You know. A neutral capital.

And even if there weren't any US bases in western Europe, there are NATO bases and the countries' own bases. And even if they weren't hit all of the radiation, fallout, fires, refugees, civil unrest, ash, economic collapse, and so many other issues aren't going to go "oops! Switzerland's neutral, let's go around, guys!"
Yes, exactly. I cannot believe we have to argue that:

A nuclear war involves targeting your enemies and their allies
That neutrality cannot be invoked at the last minute
That us and NATO as well as soviet and pact bases globally are targets wherever they are
That radiation and collapse affect only target nations
That multi megaton warheads wipe out Citi, spread contamination and poison for hundreds of miles
 
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense

Most European countries are central, so the bombing of capitals is more than enough for countries to collapse if the heads of government are cut off

Add to this that there are neutral countries such as Scandinavia, Iberia, Yugoslavia, all Africa and the Middle East, and striking them with nuclear is just an unnecessary drain.

When more US bombing is a much more practical option

So sorry this won't happen

I find this idea from the simple fact that NATO and Warsaw depend on a greater force than them (the Soviets and the Americans).

And if the Soviets succeeded in destroying America, there is no reason to make Europe nuclear, because without America to protect them, conventional war is a more practical option.

The opposite is true for Americans

you actually don't know do you? you say, but you haven't actually read about any of the actual warplanning and facts about this scenario so you are just saying random things that come up in your mind, holding back as you don't know just how aggressive countries would be when fighting on this scale, even WWII can show you that will be the case. Maybe listen to people who actually have read something about it.

What i would like to point out, as others have pointed out the obvious, is that targetting just the capital isn't going to collapse any governments unless you are talking micronations. Even my country of the Netherlands, the capital is not where the government is located so destroying only that would not destroy our government. Sure, it will probably reder my country powerless regardless, but i don't think the USSR is going to take that chance and bomb The Hague and Rotterdam as well. That way any usefull type of resistance is eliminated. Hell, they might also blow up Den Helder to take out the fleet and some tactical nukes on airfields.

I do agree that they won't target the Middle-East or Africa, but what can they do? The global effects will affect them too. For example the amount of food that is imported by those regions from Europe and America. They are crippled without any direct attacks.
 
Last edited:
I'd quote from Threads, which drives home the title of the film:
In an urban society, everything connects. Each person's needs are fed by the skills of many others. Our lives are woven together in a fabric. But the connections that make society strong also make it vulnerable.

So, yes, I provide English lessons for my students. My needs are fed by them paying me (so I can pay for my food and bills), and the food is provided by people across this country and around the world (I'm sipping Dr. Pepper and nibbling German chocolate as I browse this American website on an HP laptop made in China). Even if where I live (central Europe) is somehow completely untouched, I no longer have easy access to food and I have no idea how to farm. I'm utterly fucked. Now, multiply this a million times, a hundred million, a billion...
 

marathag

Banned
And even if you don't want me to cite Threads, The Day After is a better look at what will happen to America after a nuclear war.

The topsoil of the entire US farmbelt would be irradiated, meaning crops can't grow, even without a nuclear winter (which is unlikely not to happen), causing famines, supply lines are gone, and the trees have absorbed so much radiation that burning firewood would release lethal levels.

And The Day After was said to be LESS bleak than Threads was.
Nuclear+war.jpg


Now Things will still grow after a full exchange, but will not be too useful for humans to eat, but wildife in the Fukushima and Chernobyl exclusion zones have thrived
 
Japan was hit with nuclear bombs and its civilization did not collapse

I don't see a reason why that would happen to the rest

(For example, why do Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Portugal, or Spain go nuclear while they are neutral? So do the Middle East, East Asia, Australia, New Zealand, or even)

So the end of civilization is still exaggerated madness
Japan got rebuilt from a power that hasn't had been hit by bombs in the mainland whatsoever, for any power or even a part of said power to recover from nukes, it would take the South (provided if some of the nations there are interested in helping out) or at least some other survivor state that has some resources, at the very best, if said group receiving the resources are lucky, very lucky.
 
Japan got rebuilt from a power that hasn't had been hit by bombs in the mainland whatsoever, for any power or even a part of said power to recover from nukes, it would take the South (provided if some of the nations there are interested in helping out) or at least some other survivor state that has some resources, at the very best, if said group receiving the resources are lucky, very lucky.
Also, two small-scale bombs with the rest of the country unaffected (...well, by nukes...) and central command and control untouched. That... just won't be happening in an exchange.
 
Top