22 ms·

Nuclear War Survival Skills (1987)

162 points by marcodiego 5y ago

jmnicolas 5y ago
I know we're not supposed to question why a link was posted here, but... why? ;) I mean I thought about a lot of bad scenarios and how to prepare for them, but a nuclear war is probably not survivable, you're just going to prolong the pain a few more days / months. To have any chance you probably would have to stay at least 5 years in an underground bunker. The guys on the TV shows Alone (I'm watching the first season now) are getting crazy just after a couple weeks of isolation. The Germans have an excellent saying for these kind of situations: better an horrible end than an horror without end (sorry if my translation isn't accurate).
- _Microft 5y ago
  It was mentioned in the thread on the Castle Bravo nuclear test and OP had a good intuition that it might catch on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28478338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28478338 Edit: sigh, another PDF on my digital tsundoku pile ("in"? - as it is resembling a set more than it does a stack?).
- runawaybottle 5y ago
  The Germans have an excellent saying for these kind of situations: better an horrible end than an horror without end (sorry if my translation isn't accurate). You are the reason I come to HN. Sometimes we know, but few can say it. Thanks.
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  > but... why? ;) Because it is interesting? Because it is one of those things which fits in the frame of mind of many a hacker-type? For the same reason that some of us wear hiking boots in the server hall, just in case a mountain might spring up there? > a nuclear war is probably not survivable Of course it is, just look at how Japan came out of one. Would it be a pleasant experience? No, of course not, but the same was true for Hamburg, Tokyo and Dresden during the fire bombings, London during the Blitz, Stalingrad during the beleaguerment, the northern part of the Netherlands during the "hunger" winter of '44-'45. We like to read about war, watch movies about war, sing songs about war, create and look at art about war but few people actually want to experience war. > at least 5 years in an underground bunker As long as only "normal" nuclear weapons are used a few weeks would probably be enough, long enough for the fallout to be washed away by rain. The next step would be to leave the area and head for "the hills" - or any other area which was not directly attacked nor in the fallout plume of an attack.
  - rdevsrex 5y ago
    I read somewhere that some nuclear ware strategists considered a 30-40% global fatality rate an acceptable outcome of nuclear war, which lead to the idea of strike first being ok. I hate to think what an advanced AI would do if it thinks the best things for humanity is less humans. An anti-natalist AI with nukes is not a good thing.
    - the_third_wave 5y ago
      There is no need for an AI to come up with such a sentiment, there are plenty of people who see humans as a plague on the earth which it is better off without. The chance of some of these people triggering a nuclear exchange far exceeds the change of some future W.O.P.R. [1] getting the world into a conflict. [1] https://www.dataplusscience.com/WOPR/wargames.html https://www.dataplusscience.com/WOPR/wargames.html
      - forgetfulness 5y ago
        I think you're just taking general feelings of frustration for humanity's short-sightnedness a tad too seriously, I've yet to see any group wanting to organize the demise of humanity based on what usually drives those sentiments, like the destruction of nature or cruelty towards animals and humans, in comparison to, say... Religious people making decisions with far-reaching consequences based on their religion's eschatology.
        the_third_wave 5y ago
        I'm not so much thinking of people who want to totally eradicate humanity - these do exist [1] but they'll find it hard to gain enough adherents to get themselves in the position to trigger a nuclear exchange. The people I'm thinking of are those who'd like to see the world population reduced to what they consider to be a 'sustainable' level - neo-Malthusianists, radical Ecrocritics, etc. As you mentioned above there are also those who'd like to 'immanentise the eschaton' driven by religious zeal, e.g. Islamic State awaited the army of “Rome,” whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, would initiate the countdown to the apocalypse [2]. They did not succeed but the recent fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban might spell trouble for neighbouring Pakistan - a nuclear power - where the intelligence service ISI is suspected of being more loyal to extremists than to the Pakistani government [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Mov... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-is... [3] search for 'Pakistan ISI extremists' or something similar
- bbarnett 5y ago
  but a nuclear war is probably not survivable Do read the first chapter of the linked webpage.
  - jmnicolas 5y ago
    I'll do, but I'm pretty sure the author is assuming one nuke detonating in your area. If this is a nuclear war there's a good chance thousands of nukes will be detonated.
    - bbarnett 5y ago
      No, no the author isn't discussing one nuke. I think you are the one assuming, twice now, not the author...
- goda90 5y ago
  Why try to survive? That's something people have to ask themselves individually really. I took a wilderness survival course in college. We were usually out in a park practicing skills, but one day we just stayed in the classroom and our teacher talked about what drives people to survive extreme situations, even when they have little experience or training to do so. He brought up cases of parents going the extra mile to save the child they were lost with. He mentioned Hugh Glass and his drive for revenge after being left for dead from a bear mauling. Viktor Frankl observed a concentration camp prisoner who was always optimistic until the day he saw his family brought into the camp, and then he died soon after. For some people it could be a biological urge to keep living. Or maybe their religious beliefs drive them.
  - nosianu 5y ago
    One of the best authors for these kinds of stories (about hard-core survival) is Jack London. You can even select a theme: Tropical islands and storms, ships and the ocean, or ice-cold Yukon and gold rush? Animal centric (Call of the Wild, White Fang)?
  - jmnicolas 5y ago
    > Why try to survive? I don't question trying to survive bad scenarios in general but nuclear in particular. People seem to say a nuke isn't as bad as we think, but the problem is that in case of a nuclear war, there won't be only one nuke, so the amount of radioactivity will be very high and a nuclear winter mean that even if you survive radioactivity nothing will grow for at least 5 years so you'll end up starving. I could see myself try to take on a "Mad Max" like scenario, not a nuclear one.
- duxup 5y ago
  When I think about it I certainly wouldn't want to have my family live through it. But I would like to ... see what happens. Maybe try some effort to record observations and such, bury it in the hopes someone finds it. It might be horrible, but I can of course end it at anytime if I wish. I would not expect any kind of comfortable long term survival.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  This is addressed right up front in the book, interestingly enough. > "While working with hundreds of Americans building expedient shelters and life-support equipment, I have found that many people at first see no sense in talking about details of survival skills. Those who hold exaggerated beliefs about the dangers from nuclear weapons must first be convinced that nuclear war would not inevitably be the end of them and everything worthwhile. Only after they have begun to question the truth of these myths do they become interested, under normal peacetime conditions, in acquiring nuclear war survival skills. Therefore, before giving detailed instructions for making and using survival equipment, we will examine the most harmful of the myths about nuclear war dangers, along with some of the grim facts."
  - arethuza 5y ago
    That's nice if you are in a rural part of the US - less so if you are in densely populated and heavily targetted (at least during the Cold War) locations like the UK. Edit: Optimistic estimates by the UK government predicted 65% of population killed (53%) or seriously wounded (12%) in the short term - a real attack is likely to have been much worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg NB This optimistic scenarios was used in the writing of Threads. Edit: Think about that: Threads was optimistic!
  - TechBro8615 5y ago
    For me the lack of urgency in “prepping” for existential disasters is that I have far more pressing concerns, like avoiding bankruptcy and homelessness. If I were sitting on a mountain of cash and hard assets, I would be more willing to invest in prepping. But until then, I’ve got little to protect anyway, and I’m not about to drop $800 on filling a bag with some supplies to last me a week in the apocalypse. Surviving post-collapse would be an adventure for everyone, but an unpleasant one for most. I’ve found the best way to resolve any existential concern is to continue working on long term goals of wealth acquisition and self improvement. Come the apocalypse, I’d rather be the guy with the army than the ex-programmer begging for food in exchange for repairing a home owner’s smart fridge.
    - 5y ago
- Ekaros 5y ago
  I have really considered same. Why bother. The surviving part is harsh, but what comes after that? Most modern nice things will be gone for years. Would that really be even worth living?
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    About what comes after: Our ancestors lived with a lot worse than that. The people who walked across the US on the Oregon trail did it. I’m sure we could do it too.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      Just because some people lived in forests before me and burned down them to farm or ate the trees don't mean I want to do that...
  - jmnicolas 5y ago
    Honestly I wouldn't mind loosing modern nice things, as long as I can go outside and trying to get food in a "normal" environment. Puking blood while cancer eats me from inside, starving because animals are dead and the sun is hidden so no agriculture... way too much for me.
- Borrible 5y ago
  'Better an end with horror than horror without an end.' A saying attributed to Ferdinand von Schill, shortly before his death fighting in the streets of Stralsund. Von Schill is a, in the wider population, mostly forgotten 'German' or better Prussian hero of an uprising against french occupation in Napoleonic times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_von_Schill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_von_Schill
  - techer 5y ago
    Stolen from Reddit: A slight correction: the fixed phrase in German is "Lieber ein Ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne Ende", which translates as "Better a horrifying ending than a horror without end"
    - Borrible 5y ago
      Oh, its fine. Translation is interpretation. So, mine is not the the only valid one. And, it's a saying handed down by people admiring his determination. I'm German.
      - techer 5y ago
        Didn’t say it wasn’t fine. Thanks for your input though. I’m English
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  Have you forgotten the Great Toilet Paper Riots of 2020? We're having trouble surviving a (reasonably mild by comparison) pandemic as a species that has killed millions! Now multiply what we've seen by several orders of magnitude. With all the greed and guns in the USA... oof.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    And when the global manufacturing, logistics and supply chains actually break down. It won't be pretty...
  - echoradio 5y ago
    I live in an affluent area that gets hurricanes. You know when a storm is coming because certain shelves of goods are wiped out — non-perishable items, bread, water. When the pandemic hit, these were the same items people hoarded (in addition to toilet paper). Why? The pandemic wasn’t going to shut off a fridge/freezer. It wasn’t going to disable the water system. People reacted in the only way they knew for a crisis they experience often — not what the actual situation was. It served as a reminder that when a major, acute crisis hits, most people are not going to be thinking rationally. They’re going to rely on whatever instincts have been developed. I can’t even imagine what extremes would result from a fast-moving crisis like a nuclear explosion.
    - elihu 5y ago
      Early in the pandemic we didn't know the degree to which the supply chains would be shut down. I mean, you had footage from Wuhan where things really were seriously locked down and people basically didn't leave their houses. I'm not surprised all the beans and rice and pasta and oats vanished from the shelves. In the end our version of "shutdown" was much milder, but we didn't know that at the beginning. We were rather fortunate that delta variant didn't come along until our vaccination program was well on its way.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  What it really comes down to is that with or without this info you most likely live your life mostly the same until a catastrophe strikes. When it does you’re either dead or need to make a new life. Now based on your saying, are you going to really off yourself voluntarily, or will you make the best of a bad situation? And if you are going to make the best of it, it would’ve been real nice to study about what supplies to have prepared and what you’re going to do now, rather than go blind, and without the internet resources to help you anymore.
  - jmnicolas 5y ago
    Either you take a massive dose of radioactivity (nuclear war means several nukes) and suffer horribly 'till death or you starve because nuclear winter. I have read about it a long time ago so don't quote me on this, but a nuclear winter is supposed to last at least 5 years. Do you have the financial means and space to store that much food and rotate it regularly? I don't and frankly I'd rather not bother. Once nuclear winter is over, do you know how to grow your own food? You might not be able to hunt because all animals will either be dead or killed by other hunters. This scenario is very very hard to overcome. Not impossible, but only a few very prepared and or very lucky individuals would survive.
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      You're overestimating the cost to store years of food (dense portions of dried beans, rice, chocolate, liquor, etc; rough estimate $120 / twelve 20-lb bags of rice per person per year) and the basic educational precautions that can mean a world of quality of life; the kind of precautions you won't be able to educate yourself on if something does happen, you'll have to rely on previous gathered knowledge. Things like how to best shelter at impact and prevent exposure to radioactivity after the fact.
fasteddie31003 5y ago
My personal strategy has been to find a body of water not in the direction of the prevailing winds and steal a sailboat to live on for at least 2 weeks as the more radioactive isotopes decay.
- detritus 5y ago
  Mine's always been 'move to the Falklands'. Not the sort of thing one can do at the drop of a hat, mind.
  - michaelmcdonald 5y ago
    Why the Falklands?
    - detritus 5y ago
      I've been fascinated with the place since my father worked there after the war, and as a Northern Brit I'm comfortable in and like rugged, remote landscapes. More to the point, most of the bad shit to happen after a significant nuclear exchange will hit the Northern hemisphere and wind currents being what they are will mostly keep the fallout up there. Well, here.
      - mhh__ 5y ago
        + Penguins (admittedly in a minefield)
        detritus 5y ago
        My father's one piece of advice, having spent a lot of time flying out to take photos of the landscape and penguin colonies and such was - "Whatever you do, never go downwind of a penguin colony". Cute little buggers stink! I think the Falklands reached a milestone in mine clearance, wherein they believe most of them are dealt with now. Still, 'most' implies an unnerving possibility of chance. - ed: I realise, belatedly, that this circles back to the original conceit - staying out of the way of noxious winds :)
nimbius 5y ago
After reading the book, its pretty clear why most world leaders abandoned the idea of thermonuclear war as anything but a culpable strategy. Nuclear weapons with a twenty (or more) mile radius of fallout have the immediate ability to bridge the class divide. Whereas traditional munitions disproportionately interact with the poor (soldiers and combatants) a nuclear detonation could thrust an opulent family into fallout bunker squalor in mere minutes, and pin them there for half a decade. the prospect of survival contingent not on your wealth as in a traditional war, but on your interpersonal and improvisational survival skill was certainly looked upon with scorn.
- howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
  Worry more about accidental or forced use. Worry less about intentional use.
  - nimbius 5y ago
    What i was trying to get at I think was the supreme irony of the apex of the cold war...that a nation so bent on the destruction of class through marxist leninism forged in turn the perfect sword to obliterate it, and that its capitalist enemy at the time seemed to have no choice but to pursue an utterly nihilist brinksmanship it knew it was forbidden to pursue in any spirit other than rote patriotism. the history of the bay of pigs comes to mind. Fidel Castro, in my opinion, may have been the only communist to have the outright conviction to use nuclear arms, save Leonid Brezhnevs legendary temper and the Brezhnev doctrines closed fisted threat to glass the soviet states who fell out of line.
    - SavantIdiot 5y ago
      I'd really like to know why you're getting downvoted. This is a fascinating observation.
    - chasd00 5y ago
      During the Cuban Missile Crisis Castro was certainly ready to use them and certainly ready to suffer the consequences. Clip from Fog of War https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg
runawaybottle 5y ago
/armchair psychology Disaster/collapse/conspiracy fantasies are a product of those who were impacted by something that caused deep hurt in their life. You imagine the abstraction of your pain via these fantasies. However simple it was, or serious, you recollect through the conduit of the world ending, for that’s what it felt like to you. Very odd, too human.
- otikik 5y ago
  > conspiracy fantasies Stanislav Petrov
- Tade0 5y ago
  I'm the first in four generations of my family to not (yet) experience war firsthand, so at least in my case it's more about being aware how prone to conflict the area I live in is.
howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
When the book was first authored 6 or 7 states had nuclear weapons, but only 2 had the means to deliver those weapons intercontinentally. Today 8 or 9 states are nuclear capable and most have intercontinental delivery systems. Setting aside intentional use, the probability of accidental or forced launch has increased significantly. The difference between an industrial accident & military accidents are only semantic after the fact; and some of these states have accident rates that are deeply troubling. One might reasonably expect Japan, S. Korea, Saudi Arabia and others to join the nuclear club soon, particularly as/if the US conventional deterrent fades & its nuclear umbrella deterrent grows more uncertain.
- mLuby 5y ago
  > One might reasonably expect Japan… to join the nuclear club soon That would be surprising, but there's more history in favor of it than I'd expected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program#Postwar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_progra...
- tester756 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov >Petrov was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile had been launched from the United States, followed by up to five more. Petrov judged the reports to be a false alarm, and his decision to disobey orders, against Soviet military protocol, is credited with having prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its NATO allies that could have resulted in a large-scale nuclear war. An investigation later confirmed that the Soviet satellite warning system had indeed malfunctioned. >Had Petrov reported incoming American missiles, his superiors might have launched an assault against the United States, precipitating a corresponding nuclear response from the United States. Petrov declared the system's indication a false alarm. Later, it was apparent that he was right: no missiles were approaching and the computer detection system was malfunctioning. It was subsequently determined that the false alarm had been created by a rare alignment of sunlight on high-altitude clouds above North Dakota and the Molniya orbits of the satellites, an error later corrected by cross-referencing a geostationary satellite. >Petrov later indicated that the influences on his decision included that he had been told a US strike would be all-out, so five missiles seemed an illogical start; that the launch detection system was new and, in his view, not yet wholly trustworthy; that the message passed through 30 layers of verification too quickly; and that ground radar failed to pick up corroborative evidence, even after minutes of delay. However, in a 2013 interview, Petrov said at the time he was never sure that the alarm was erroneous. He felt that his civilian training helped him make the right decision. He said that his colleagues were all professional soldiers with purely military training and, following instructions, would have reported a missile launch if they had been on his shift. >But nuclear security expert Bruce G. Blair has said that at that time, the U.S.–Soviet relationship had deteriorated to the point where "the Soviet Union as a system—not just the Kremlin, not just Andropov, not just the KGB—but as a system, was geared to expect an attack and to retaliate very quickly to it. It was on hair-trigger alert. It was very nervous and prone to mistakes and accidents. The false alarm that happened on Petrov's watch could not have come at a more dangerous, intense phase in US–Soviet relations."[23] At that time, according to Oleg Kalugin, a former KGB chief of foreign counterintelligence, "The danger was in the Soviet leadership thinking, 'The Americans may attack, so we better attack first.'"
jacknews 5y ago
I'm not sure why this was posted, although the nuclear risk does currently seem higher than in the last couple of decades, with China eyeing Taiwan, etc. OTOH, nuclear war might halt the climate crisis, over-population, etc.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > OTOH, nuclear war might halt the climate crisis, over-population, etc. Well when everyone's dead or starving for sure your first world problems will fade away.
alexgmcm 5y ago
Having seen Threads, I'm not sure surviving a nuclear war would even be desirable.
- ganSo 5y ago
  True. Watching that movie was a mistake. I just felt bad the entire time. Just felt like absolute ass. There is something to be said about art that just makes you feel awful the entire time.
- RGamma 5y ago
  IMO not. Large-enough scale nuclear war would indicate to me a colossal failure as a species. It might be best to leave behind the fellow apes for good. Will watch the movie.
  - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
    ...don't. This movie was horror on an existential level, and left me with a firm conviction that surviving a nuclear war would be the worst of all outcomes.
    - RGamma 5y ago
      The worst it could do is broaden my horizon. As long as it's fiction I don't mind, but thanks for your concern :)
  - ramses0 5y ago
    "Failsafe" too. Old, black and white. Spooky. :-)
- echoradio 5y ago
  Watching “Threads” made me realize I want to be at ground zero if I’m ever in the vicinity of a target for a nuclear strike.
- aqsalose 5y ago
  I thought the picture Threads painted was silly at the later parts. After the nuclear war, the next generation loses grammar and ability to speak coherent sentences? Just because it is gritty, doesn't mean it is realistic. WW1 and WW2 both managed to be horrifying in unanticipated ways.
sleibrock 5y ago
Reminds me about a game where you grab all your belongings as quickly as you can, jump into your fallout shelter, and survive for as many days as possible with your family. It's pretty morbid. https://store.steampowered.com/app/368360/60_Seconds/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/368360/60_Seconds/
theandrewbailey 5y ago
> Original Edition Published September, 1979, by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a Facility of the U.S. Department of Energy Since government works are public domain, I wonder why this text (or another one like it) hasn't appeared in the Fallout game series.
User23 5y ago
A number of diagrams in the print edition are 1:1 scale and won’t work at any other size. If you want this book be sure to get a correct print edition.
zabzonk 5y ago
My Dad's strategy for survival was: buy lots of canned goods. At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis he was an RAF V-bomber captain, and when he wasn't on QRA he would rush into our flat in Doncaster, dump tins of beans and rush out again. I was about 9 years old at the time, and didn't really grasp what might be about to happen. It was all a bit futile really - the base he flew from (Finningley) was then one of the RAF's biggest bases, and would have been smeared as a prime target. Doncaster, around five miles from the base would have been incinerated. As someone that spent most of his young life living in nuclear bulls-eyes, I do sometimes feel a bit lucky!
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  > he was an RAF V-bomber captain Massive respect, I love the whole history surrounding the V-bombers.
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    Are you american? I'm just curious because that's the impression I get from "Massive respect". The V-Bombers are very cool, of course, highly recommend Mark Felton's YouTube channel as he has some very niche stories about them e.g. simulated bombing missions of the east coast.
    - CodeGlitch 5y ago
      Thanks for the Youtube links, something to watch this weekend. No I'm British - I wasn't aware that "massive respect" was American, and shall try and correct my error :)
    - zabzonk 5y ago
      Pah! You call those niche! How about flying a booster for the UK's crappy space programme in the Vulcan's bomb-bay from Lincolnshire to the Woomera rocket site, Australia, illegally crossing Indonesian airspace on the way, because they figured out that the Indonesians would probably not detect the Vulcan (early stealth) and if they did they had nothing that could intercept it. And then the whole Vulcan crew fell asleep for about an hour, while the plane carried on on autopilot. Strange but true - my Dad was the captain.
dang 5y ago
Some past threads: Nuclear War Survival Skills (1987) [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305892 - Sept 2017 (213 comments) Nuclear War Survival Skills (1987) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9158642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9158642 - March 2015 (1 comment) Nuclear war survival skills (1987 Edition) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1283571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1283571 - April 2010 (15 comments)
UpHereAlone 5y ago
I bought a pack of iodine pills when Trump starting taunting King Jong Un on Twitter calling him "Rocketman". Would they realistically protect someone from the immediate effects of the radiation from a nuclear bomb?
- time0ut 5y ago
  No. They protect your thyroid from absorbing radioactive iodine. You still have to protect yourself from other forms of fallout. The linked book goes into extreme detail on all aspects of this.
timonoko 5y ago
In 1970's the doctrine of Finnish Army was very much post-nuclear prolonged guerrilla/revenge war. We learned that fresh birch-leaves are nukular-free nourishment unlike berries and mushrooms or small animals. Also you must dust yourself with fir branches frequently for fall-out particles.
- nabla9 5y ago
  To feed any meaningful number of men who move a lot, that's not enough. Instead of hunting, you visit local farms that have stored hay safe from the fallout and have cattle kept indoors. You take what you need and leave receipt.
  - timonoko 5y ago
    Actually birch leaves have nourishment value close potatoes to 400 kcal/100 grams as I recall. And lots of vitamin C. But they taste very bad. We tested that too, with prolonged boiling and Tabasco, birch leaves are at least semi-edible. This scene we were presented was a wasteland, no farmers left. The purpose of this operation was too keep the wasteland wasted. Some Estonian "Forest Brothers" survived 40 years to see their country free again. That was the doctrine at that time.
    - nabla9 5y ago
      Product: Birch leaves minced - Bulk Characteristic Look and color: Green Flavor: Bitter herbal Nutrition 100 g: kJ 66 / Kcal 16, total fat 0,2 g of which saturated fat 0 g, Carbohydrate 3 g, of which sugar 1,8 g, protein 7 g 16 kcal seems more reasonable.
      - timonoko 5y ago
        Cant argue with facts at the moment. All I know birch is more fulfilling than Reindeer Moss that former SS-officer Noko was enjoying in 1944. However. This book from 1963 seems familiar "Guerilla Warfare, conditions and outlines". Maybe there is some cooking recipes, too: https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/130579/Sotataidon%20klassikko_Ilmola_verkkoversio1.pdf?sequence=2 https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/130579/Sotataido...
trixie_ 5y ago
We need to be more aware that there are many submarines in the ocean with 200 long range nuclear warheads each. One sub can pretty much hit every city within a 4,000 mile radius. It’s a terrifying constant threat that the vast majority of people are oblivious to.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Actually this is quite interesting. Some propose that the US should get rid of all land based deterrence, since the “enemy” whoever they are, would use bunker Busters against land based missiles, causing much more damage than if they only used air bursts against cities. I’m inclined to think they are right.
time0ut 5y ago
I’ve read this book a few times now. It is quite interesting. I am pretty sure if there was a nuclear war I would just be screwed. I live about 15 miles from a naval base. My entire survival strategy starts with “hope that Russian ICBMs are accurate so I don’t die instantly…”. Not sure anything in the book would help me after that point, but worth a shot I guess.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  Pretty sure significant targets - larger cities and significant facilities - would get a barrage instead of a single weapon. Multiple relatively small warheads spread across an area are far more damaging than a single super-nuke, which is why Tsar Bombas fell out of fashion. At one point it was rumoured there were hundreds of warheads aimed at Moscow. Even Dick Cheney was shocked when he found out. It's a reasonable guess Washington and London would have had the same treatment. I'm not sure anyone even knows what that would do to an area, except possibly turn it into a pool of radioactive lava.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    > Pretty sure significant targets - larger cities and significant facilities - would get a barrage instead of a single weapon. Yup, this was already discussed (I forgot where, sorry) before, I think the US back in the 70s or 80s had plans for example to send at least 5 or 6 nukes on each target, just to be sure they would be completely destroyed. And if I remember correctly they had several dozens of thousands of targets, meaning that everything apart from small villages would be nuked to the ground. Even smaller cities, relatively speaking.
Borrible 5y ago
Making babies, quickly and a lot? Because of a higher mortality rate, decreased fertility, increased rate of deformities, and an overall short and brutal life? I mean, you have to think about the future... https://bookauthority.org/books/best-obstetrics-and-gynecology-books https://bookauthority.org/books/best-obstetrics-and-gynecolo...
cwbuckm12 5y ago
I have the original handbook somewhere in my basement. Good read.
gumby 5y ago
I took a class on strategic deterrence and game theory as an undergraduate in the early 80s. Even then I took it in part for its weirdness — in my entire life I was not able to take the threat of global nuclear war seriously. Basically I figured that it wouldn’t really happen because the consequences were too extreme; in the case of accidental discharge the ability to survive was a crapshoot at best Ly under my control (e,g. I live across the street from Draper Labs). In fact the preparations for fallout shelters and the like always seemed like a failure of imagination.
Haga 5y ago
Nuclear war has prevented the traditional mass slaughter of the Lowe classes as social steam valve for about three generations now. I'm grateful for that. Gametheory and mass destruction tamed some of our worst psychopathsiin power.
ThinkBeat 5y ago
When I was in the army, we would have drills to dig shallow "graves" quickly and then jump into them. They were not officially called graves. By the time you had intelligence needed to start digging your grave it was probably only good for dying in anyways.
- CapstanRoller 5y ago
  Assuming you're not hit directly, those 'shell scrapes' are excellent for protecting against conventional explosives and associated shrapnel, though.
blueyes 5y ago
This Freeman Dyson interview is very apropos: https://www.manhattanprojectvoices.org/oral-histories/freeman-dysons-interview https://www.manhattanprojectvoices.org/oral-histories/freema... Kelly: People think that if you have a technological edge, that you can vanquish your enemy, but obviously you have to keep your technological edge sharp. Dyson: It’s the same with civil defense. The Germans were being heavily bombed for about three years, so they got very good at civil defense. Whereas in Britain we were only bombed for six months, we never really got the hang of it. It was a huge difference. It actually took ten times as many bombs to kill one person in Germany as it did to kill one person in London. That was one of the reasons why the campaign failed, that the German civil defense was just very good. You can actually save people with civil defense. Most people are unaware of that. Civil defense does work. It would also work against nuclear bombs. Of course, that is a politically unpopular view, but it happens to be true. Kelly: Can you explain that? Dyson: Well, most of the people who are killed in nuclear bombing are killed by blast and fire, which is sort of old-fashioned, it has nothing to do nuclear radiation. Some people die of nuclear radiation, but that’s a small number by comparison. If you are five feet underground, you are very well shielded from all of that. So most people, even in a nuclear bombing, would survive, if they are five feet underground. Of course, in Hiroshima, they didn’t have that. If the Japanese had had a couple of years, they would have learned, and probably faster than that. It’s quite unrealistic to imagine that, with good civil defense, that Hiroshima would have been so devastating.

162 points by marcodiego 5y ago

I know we're not supposed to question why a link was posted here, but... why? ;) I mean I thought about a lot of bad scenarios and how to prepare for them, but a nuclear war is probably not survivable, you're just going to prolong the pain a few more days / months. To have any chance you probably would have to stay at least 5 years in an underground bunker. The guys on the TV shows Alone (I'm watching the first season now) are getting crazy just after a couple weeks of isolation. The Germans have an excellent saying for these kind of situations: better an horrible end than an horror without end (sorry if my translation isn't accurate).

_Microft 5y ago
It was mentioned in the thread on the Castle Bravo nuclear test and OP had a good intuition that it might catch on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28478338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28478338 Edit: sigh, another PDF on my digital tsundoku pile ("in"? - as it is resembling a set more than it does a stack?).
runawaybottle 5y ago
The Germans have an excellent saying for these kind of situations: better an horrible end than an horror without end (sorry if my translation isn't accurate). You are the reason I come to HN. Sometimes we know, but few can say it. Thanks.
the_third_wave 5y ago
> but... why? ;) Because it is interesting? Because it is one of those things which fits in the frame of mind of many a hacker-type? For the same reason that some of us wear hiking boots in the server hall, just in case a mountain might spring up there? > a nuclear war is probably not survivable Of course it is, just look at how Japan came out of one. Would it be a pleasant experience? No, of course not, but the same was true for Hamburg, Tokyo and Dresden during the fire bombings, London during the Blitz, Stalingrad during the beleaguerment, the northern part of the Netherlands during the "hunger" winter of '44-'45. We like to read about war, watch movies about war, sing songs about war, create and look at art about war but few people actually want to experience war. > at least 5 years in an underground bunker As long as only "normal" nuclear weapons are used a few weeks would probably be enough, long enough for the fallout to be washed away by rain. The next step would be to leave the area and head for "the hills" - or any other area which was not directly attacked nor in the fallout plume of an attack.
- rdevsrex 5y ago
  I read somewhere that some nuclear ware strategists considered a 30-40% global fatality rate an acceptable outcome of nuclear war, which lead to the idea of strike first being ok. I hate to think what an advanced AI would do if it thinks the best things for humanity is less humans. An anti-natalist AI with nukes is not a good thing.
  - the_third_wave 5y ago
    There is no need for an AI to come up with such a sentiment, there are plenty of people who see humans as a plague on the earth which it is better off without. The chance of some of these people triggering a nuclear exchange far exceeds the change of some future W.O.P.R. [1] getting the world into a conflict. [1] https://www.dataplusscience.com/WOPR/wargames.html https://www.dataplusscience.com/WOPR/wargames.html
    - forgetfulness 5y ago
      I think you're just taking general feelings of frustration for humanity's short-sightnedness a tad too seriously, I've yet to see any group wanting to organize the demise of humanity based on what usually drives those sentiments, like the destruction of nature or cruelty towards animals and humans, in comparison to, say... Religious people making decisions with far-reaching consequences based on their religion's eschatology.
      - the_third_wave 5y ago
        I'm not so much thinking of people who want to totally eradicate humanity - these do exist [1] but they'll find it hard to gain enough adherents to get themselves in the position to trigger a nuclear exchange. The people I'm thinking of are those who'd like to see the world population reduced to what they consider to be a 'sustainable' level - neo-Malthusianists, radical Ecrocritics, etc. As you mentioned above there are also those who'd like to 'immanentise the eschaton' driven by religious zeal, e.g. Islamic State awaited the army of “Rome,” whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, would initiate the countdown to the apocalypse [2]. They did not succeed but the recent fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban might spell trouble for neighbouring Pakistan - a nuclear power - where the intelligence service ISI is suspected of being more loyal to extremists than to the Pakistani government [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Mov... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-is... [3] search for 'Pakistan ISI extremists' or something similar
bbarnett 5y ago
but a nuclear war is probably not survivable Do read the first chapter of the linked webpage.
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  I'll do, but I'm pretty sure the author is assuming one nuke detonating in your area. If this is a nuclear war there's a good chance thousands of nukes will be detonated.
  - bbarnett 5y ago
    No, no the author isn't discussing one nuke. I think you are the one assuming, twice now, not the author...
goda90 5y ago
Why try to survive? That's something people have to ask themselves individually really. I took a wilderness survival course in college. We were usually out in a park practicing skills, but one day we just stayed in the classroom and our teacher talked about what drives people to survive extreme situations, even when they have little experience or training to do so. He brought up cases of parents going the extra mile to save the child they were lost with. He mentioned Hugh Glass and his drive for revenge after being left for dead from a bear mauling. Viktor Frankl observed a concentration camp prisoner who was always optimistic until the day he saw his family brought into the camp, and then he died soon after. For some people it could be a biological urge to keep living. Or maybe their religious beliefs drive them.
- nosianu 5y ago
  One of the best authors for these kinds of stories (about hard-core survival) is Jack London. You can even select a theme: Tropical islands and storms, ships and the ocean, or ice-cold Yukon and gold rush? Animal centric (Call of the Wild, White Fang)?
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  > Why try to survive? I don't question trying to survive bad scenarios in general but nuclear in particular. People seem to say a nuke isn't as bad as we think, but the problem is that in case of a nuclear war, there won't be only one nuke, so the amount of radioactivity will be very high and a nuclear winter mean that even if you survive radioactivity nothing will grow for at least 5 years so you'll end up starving. I could see myself try to take on a "Mad Max" like scenario, not a nuclear one.
duxup 5y ago
When I think about it I certainly wouldn't want to have my family live through it. But I would like to ... see what happens. Maybe try some effort to record observations and such, bury it in the hopes someone finds it. It might be horrible, but I can of course end it at anytime if I wish. I would not expect any kind of comfortable long term survival.
horsawlarway 5y ago
This is addressed right up front in the book, interestingly enough. > "While working with hundreds of Americans building expedient shelters and life-support equipment, I have found that many people at first see no sense in talking about details of survival skills. Those who hold exaggerated beliefs about the dangers from nuclear weapons must first be convinced that nuclear war would not inevitably be the end of them and everything worthwhile. Only after they have begun to question the truth of these myths do they become interested, under normal peacetime conditions, in acquiring nuclear war survival skills. Therefore, before giving detailed instructions for making and using survival equipment, we will examine the most harmful of the myths about nuclear war dangers, along with some of the grim facts."
- arethuza 5y ago
  That's nice if you are in a rural part of the US - less so if you are in densely populated and heavily targetted (at least during the Cold War) locations like the UK. Edit: Optimistic estimates by the UK government predicted 65% of population killed (53%) or seriously wounded (12%) in the short term - a real attack is likely to have been much worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg NB This optimistic scenarios was used in the writing of Threads. Edit: Think about that: Threads was optimistic!
- TechBro8615 5y ago
  For me the lack of urgency in “prepping” for existential disasters is that I have far more pressing concerns, like avoiding bankruptcy and homelessness. If I were sitting on a mountain of cash and hard assets, I would be more willing to invest in prepping. But until then, I’ve got little to protect anyway, and I’m not about to drop $800 on filling a bag with some supplies to last me a week in the apocalypse. Surviving post-collapse would be an adventure for everyone, but an unpleasant one for most. I’ve found the best way to resolve any existential concern is to continue working on long term goals of wealth acquisition and self improvement. Come the apocalypse, I’d rather be the guy with the army than the ex-programmer begging for food in exchange for repairing a home owner’s smart fridge.
  - 5y ago
Ekaros 5y ago
I have really considered same. Why bother. The surviving part is harsh, but what comes after that? Most modern nice things will be gone for years. Would that really be even worth living?
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  About what comes after: Our ancestors lived with a lot worse than that. The people who walked across the US on the Oregon trail did it. I’m sure we could do it too.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Just because some people lived in forests before me and burned down them to farm or ate the trees don't mean I want to do that...
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  Honestly I wouldn't mind loosing modern nice things, as long as I can go outside and trying to get food in a "normal" environment. Puking blood while cancer eats me from inside, starving because animals are dead and the sun is hidden so no agriculture... way too much for me.
Borrible 5y ago
'Better an end with horror than horror without an end.' A saying attributed to Ferdinand von Schill, shortly before his death fighting in the streets of Stralsund. Von Schill is a, in the wider population, mostly forgotten 'German' or better Prussian hero of an uprising against french occupation in Napoleonic times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_von_Schill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_von_Schill
- techer 5y ago
  Stolen from Reddit: A slight correction: the fixed phrase in German is "Lieber ein Ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne Ende", which translates as "Better a horrifying ending than a horror without end"
  - Borrible 5y ago
    Oh, its fine. Translation is interpretation. So, mine is not the the only valid one. And, it's a saying handed down by people admiring his determination. I'm German.
    - techer 5y ago
      Didn’t say it wasn’t fine. Thanks for your input though. I’m English
SavantIdiot 5y ago
Have you forgotten the Great Toilet Paper Riots of 2020? We're having trouble surviving a (reasonably mild by comparison) pandemic as a species that has killed millions! Now multiply what we've seen by several orders of magnitude. With all the greed and guns in the USA... oof.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  And when the global manufacturing, logistics and supply chains actually break down. It won't be pretty...
- echoradio 5y ago
  I live in an affluent area that gets hurricanes. You know when a storm is coming because certain shelves of goods are wiped out — non-perishable items, bread, water. When the pandemic hit, these were the same items people hoarded (in addition to toilet paper). Why? The pandemic wasn’t going to shut off a fridge/freezer. It wasn’t going to disable the water system. People reacted in the only way they knew for a crisis they experience often — not what the actual situation was. It served as a reminder that when a major, acute crisis hits, most people are not going to be thinking rationally. They’re going to rely on whatever instincts have been developed. I can’t even imagine what extremes would result from a fast-moving crisis like a nuclear explosion.
  - elihu 5y ago
    Early in the pandemic we didn't know the degree to which the supply chains would be shut down. I mean, you had footage from Wuhan where things really were seriously locked down and people basically didn't leave their houses. I'm not surprised all the beans and rice and pasta and oats vanished from the shelves. In the end our version of "shutdown" was much milder, but we didn't know that at the beginning. We were rather fortunate that delta variant didn't come along until our vaccination program was well on its way.
reducesuffering 5y ago
What it really comes down to is that with or without this info you most likely live your life mostly the same until a catastrophe strikes. When it does you’re either dead or need to make a new life. Now based on your saying, are you going to really off yourself voluntarily, or will you make the best of a bad situation? And if you are going to make the best of it, it would’ve been real nice to study about what supplies to have prepared and what you’re going to do now, rather than go blind, and without the internet resources to help you anymore.
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  Either you take a massive dose of radioactivity (nuclear war means several nukes) and suffer horribly 'till death or you starve because nuclear winter. I have read about it a long time ago so don't quote me on this, but a nuclear winter is supposed to last at least 5 years. Do you have the financial means and space to store that much food and rotate it regularly? I don't and frankly I'd rather not bother. Once nuclear winter is over, do you know how to grow your own food? You might not be able to hunt because all animals will either be dead or killed by other hunters. This scenario is very very hard to overcome. Not impossible, but only a few very prepared and or very lucky individuals would survive.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    You're overestimating the cost to store years of food (dense portions of dried beans, rice, chocolate, liquor, etc; rough estimate $120 / twelve 20-lb bags of rice per person per year) and the basic educational precautions that can mean a world of quality of life; the kind of precautions you won't be able to educate yourself on if something does happen, you'll have to rely on previous gathered knowledge. Things like how to best shelter at impact and prevent exposure to radioactivity after the fact.

fasteddie31003 5y ago

My personal strategy has been to find a body of water not in the direction of the prevailing winds and steal a sailboat to live on for at least 2 weeks as the more radioactive isotopes decay.

detritus 5y ago
Mine's always been 'move to the Falklands'. Not the sort of thing one can do at the drop of a hat, mind.
- michaelmcdonald 5y ago
  Why the Falklands?
  - detritus 5y ago
    I've been fascinated with the place since my father worked there after the war, and as a Northern Brit I'm comfortable in and like rugged, remote landscapes. More to the point, most of the bad shit to happen after a significant nuclear exchange will hit the Northern hemisphere and wind currents being what they are will mostly keep the fallout up there. Well, here.
    - mhh__ 5y ago
      + Penguins (admittedly in a minefield)
      - detritus 5y ago
        My father's one piece of advice, having spent a lot of time flying out to take photos of the landscape and penguin colonies and such was - "Whatever you do, never go downwind of a penguin colony". Cute little buggers stink! I think the Falklands reached a milestone in mine clearance, wherein they believe most of them are dealt with now. Still, 'most' implies an unnerving possibility of chance. - ed: I realise, belatedly, that this circles back to the original conceit - staying out of the way of noxious winds :)

nimbius 5y ago

After reading the book, its pretty clear why most world leaders abandoned the idea of thermonuclear war as anything but a culpable strategy. Nuclear weapons with a twenty (or more) mile radius of fallout have the immediate ability to bridge the class divide. Whereas traditional munitions disproportionately interact with the poor (soldiers and combatants) a nuclear detonation could thrust an opulent family into fallout bunker squalor in mere minutes, and pin them there for half a decade. the prospect of survival contingent not on your wealth as in a traditional war, but on your interpersonal and improvisational survival skill was certainly looked upon with scorn.

howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
Worry more about accidental or forced use. Worry less about intentional use.
- nimbius 5y ago
  What i was trying to get at I think was the supreme irony of the apex of the cold war...that a nation so bent on the destruction of class through marxist leninism forged in turn the perfect sword to obliterate it, and that its capitalist enemy at the time seemed to have no choice but to pursue an utterly nihilist brinksmanship it knew it was forbidden to pursue in any spirit other than rote patriotism. the history of the bay of pigs comes to mind. Fidel Castro, in my opinion, may have been the only communist to have the outright conviction to use nuclear arms, save Leonid Brezhnevs legendary temper and the Brezhnev doctrines closed fisted threat to glass the soviet states who fell out of line.
  - SavantIdiot 5y ago
    I'd really like to know why you're getting downvoted. This is a fascinating observation.
  - chasd00 5y ago
    During the Cuban Missile Crisis Castro was certainly ready to use them and certainly ready to suffer the consequences. Clip from Fog of War https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg

runawaybottle 5y ago

/armchair psychology Disaster/collapse/conspiracy fantasies are a product of those who were impacted by something that caused deep hurt in their life. You imagine the abstraction of your pain via these fantasies. However simple it was, or serious, you recollect through the conduit of the world ending, for that’s what it felt like to you. Very odd, too human.

otikik 5y ago
> conspiracy fantasies Stanislav Petrov
Tade0 5y ago
I'm the first in four generations of my family to not (yet) experience war firsthand, so at least in my case it's more about being aware how prone to conflict the area I live in is.

howmayiannoyyou 5y ago

When the book was first authored 6 or 7 states had nuclear weapons, but only 2 had the means to deliver those weapons intercontinentally. Today 8 or 9 states are nuclear capable and most have intercontinental delivery systems. Setting aside intentional use, the probability of accidental or forced launch has increased significantly. The difference between an industrial accident & military accidents are only semantic after the fact; and some of these states have accident rates that are deeply troubling. One might reasonably expect Japan, S. Korea, Saudi Arabia and others to join the nuclear club soon, particularly as/if the US conventional deterrent fades & its nuclear umbrella deterrent grows more uncertain.

mLuby 5y ago
> One might reasonably expect Japan… to join the nuclear club soon That would be surprising, but there's more history in favor of it than I'd expected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program#Postwar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_progra...
tester756 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov >Petrov was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile had been launched from the United States, followed by up to five more. Petrov judged the reports to be a false alarm, and his decision to disobey orders, against Soviet military protocol, is credited with having prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its NATO allies that could have resulted in a large-scale nuclear war. An investigation later confirmed that the Soviet satellite warning system had indeed malfunctioned. >Had Petrov reported incoming American missiles, his superiors might have launched an assault against the United States, precipitating a corresponding nuclear response from the United States. Petrov declared the system's indication a false alarm. Later, it was apparent that he was right: no missiles were approaching and the computer detection system was malfunctioning. It was subsequently determined that the false alarm had been created by a rare alignment of sunlight on high-altitude clouds above North Dakota and the Molniya orbits of the satellites, an error later corrected by cross-referencing a geostationary satellite. >Petrov later indicated that the influences on his decision included that he had been told a US strike would be all-out, so five missiles seemed an illogical start; that the launch detection system was new and, in his view, not yet wholly trustworthy; that the message passed through 30 layers of verification too quickly; and that ground radar failed to pick up corroborative evidence, even after minutes of delay. However, in a 2013 interview, Petrov said at the time he was never sure that the alarm was erroneous. He felt that his civilian training helped him make the right decision. He said that his colleagues were all professional soldiers with purely military training and, following instructions, would have reported a missile launch if they had been on his shift. >But nuclear security expert Bruce G. Blair has said that at that time, the U.S.–Soviet relationship had deteriorated to the point where "the Soviet Union as a system—not just the Kremlin, not just Andropov, not just the KGB—but as a system, was geared to expect an attack and to retaliate very quickly to it. It was on hair-trigger alert. It was very nervous and prone to mistakes and accidents. The false alarm that happened on Petrov's watch could not have come at a more dangerous, intense phase in US–Soviet relations."[23] At that time, according to Oleg Kalugin, a former KGB chief of foreign counterintelligence, "The danger was in the Soviet leadership thinking, 'The Americans may attack, so we better attack first.'"

jacknews 5y ago

I'm not sure why this was posted, although the nuclear risk does currently seem higher than in the last couple of decades, with China eyeing Taiwan, etc. OTOH, nuclear war might halt the climate crisis, over-population, etc.

ekianjo 5y ago
> OTOH, nuclear war might halt the climate crisis, over-population, etc. Well when everyone's dead or starving for sure your first world problems will fade away.

alexgmcm 5y ago

Having seen Threads, I'm not sure surviving a nuclear war would even be desirable.

ganSo 5y ago
True. Watching that movie was a mistake. I just felt bad the entire time. Just felt like absolute ass. There is something to be said about art that just makes you feel awful the entire time.
RGamma 5y ago
IMO not. Large-enough scale nuclear war would indicate to me a colossal failure as a species. It might be best to leave behind the fellow apes for good. Will watch the movie.
- wing-_-nuts 5y ago
  ...don't. This movie was horror on an existential level, and left me with a firm conviction that surviving a nuclear war would be the worst of all outcomes.
  - RGamma 5y ago
    The worst it could do is broaden my horizon. As long as it's fiction I don't mind, but thanks for your concern :)
- ramses0 5y ago
  "Failsafe" too. Old, black and white. Spooky. :-)
echoradio 5y ago
Watching “Threads” made me realize I want to be at ground zero if I’m ever in the vicinity of a target for a nuclear strike.
aqsalose 5y ago
I thought the picture Threads painted was silly at the later parts. After the nuclear war, the next generation loses grammar and ability to speak coherent sentences? Just because it is gritty, doesn't mean it is realistic. WW1 and WW2 both managed to be horrifying in unanticipated ways.

sleibrock 5y ago

Reminds me about a game where you grab all your belongings as quickly as you can, jump into your fallout shelter, and survive for as many days as possible with your family. It's pretty morbid. https://store.steampowered.com/app/368360/60_Seconds/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/368360/60_Seconds/

theandrewbailey 5y ago

> Original Edition Published September, 1979, by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a Facility of the U.S. Department of Energy Since government works are public domain, I wonder why this text (or another one like it) hasn't appeared in the Fallout game series.

User23 5y ago

A number of diagrams in the print edition are 1:1 scale and won’t work at any other size. If you want this book be sure to get a correct print edition.

zabzonk 5y ago

My Dad's strategy for survival was: buy lots of canned goods. At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis he was an RAF V-bomber captain, and when he wasn't on QRA he would rush into our flat in Doncaster, dump tins of beans and rush out again. I was about 9 years old at the time, and didn't really grasp what might be about to happen. It was all a bit futile really - the base he flew from (Finningley) was then one of the RAF's biggest bases, and would have been smeared as a prime target. Doncaster, around five miles from the base would have been incinerated. As someone that spent most of his young life living in nuclear bulls-eyes, I do sometimes feel a bit lucky!

CodeGlitch 5y ago
> he was an RAF V-bomber captain Massive respect, I love the whole history surrounding the V-bombers.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Are you american? I'm just curious because that's the impression I get from "Massive respect". The V-Bombers are very cool, of course, highly recommend Mark Felton's YouTube channel as he has some very niche stories about them e.g. simulated bombing missions of the east coast.
  - CodeGlitch 5y ago
    Thanks for the Youtube links, something to watch this weekend. No I'm British - I wasn't aware that "massive respect" was American, and shall try and correct my error :)
  - zabzonk 5y ago
    Pah! You call those niche! How about flying a booster for the UK's crappy space programme in the Vulcan's bomb-bay from Lincolnshire to the Woomera rocket site, Australia, illegally crossing Indonesian airspace on the way, because they figured out that the Indonesians would probably not detect the Vulcan (early stealth) and if they did they had nothing that could intercept it. And then the whole Vulcan crew fell asleep for about an hour, while the plane carried on on autopilot. Strange but true - my Dad was the captain.

dang 5y ago

Some past threads: Nuclear War Survival Skills (1987) [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15305892 - Sept 2017 (213 comments) Nuclear War Survival Skills (1987) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9158642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9158642 - March 2015 (1 comment) Nuclear war survival skills (1987 Edition) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1283571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1283571 - April 2010 (15 comments)

UpHereAlone 5y ago

I bought a pack of iodine pills when Trump starting taunting King Jong Un on Twitter calling him "Rocketman". Would they realistically protect someone from the immediate effects of the radiation from a nuclear bomb?

time0ut 5y ago
No. They protect your thyroid from absorbing radioactive iodine. You still have to protect yourself from other forms of fallout. The linked book goes into extreme detail on all aspects of this.

timonoko 5y ago

In 1970's the doctrine of Finnish Army was very much post-nuclear prolonged guerrilla/revenge war. We learned that fresh birch-leaves are nukular-free nourishment unlike berries and mushrooms or small animals. Also you must dust yourself with fir branches frequently for fall-out particles.

nabla9 5y ago
To feed any meaningful number of men who move a lot, that's not enough. Instead of hunting, you visit local farms that have stored hay safe from the fallout and have cattle kept indoors. You take what you need and leave receipt.
- timonoko 5y ago
  Actually birch leaves have nourishment value close potatoes to 400 kcal/100 grams as I recall. And lots of vitamin C. But they taste very bad. We tested that too, with prolonged boiling and Tabasco, birch leaves are at least semi-edible. This scene we were presented was a wasteland, no farmers left. The purpose of this operation was too keep the wasteland wasted. Some Estonian "Forest Brothers" survived 40 years to see their country free again. That was the doctrine at that time.
  - nabla9 5y ago
    Product: Birch leaves minced - Bulk Characteristic Look and color: Green Flavor: Bitter herbal Nutrition 100 g: kJ 66 / Kcal 16, total fat 0,2 g of which saturated fat 0 g, Carbohydrate 3 g, of which sugar 1,8 g, protein 7 g 16 kcal seems more reasonable.
    - timonoko 5y ago
      Cant argue with facts at the moment. All I know birch is more fulfilling than Reindeer Moss that former SS-officer Noko was enjoying in 1944. However. This book from 1963 seems familiar "Guerilla Warfare, conditions and outlines". Maybe there is some cooking recipes, too: https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/130579/Sotataidon%20klassikko_Ilmola_verkkoversio1.pdf?sequence=2 https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/130579/Sotataido...

trixie_ 5y ago

We need to be more aware that there are many submarines in the ocean with 200 long range nuclear warheads each. One sub can pretty much hit every city within a 4,000 mile radius. It’s a terrifying constant threat that the vast majority of people are oblivious to.

amanaplanacanal 5y ago
Actually this is quite interesting. Some propose that the US should get rid of all land based deterrence, since the “enemy” whoever they are, would use bunker Busters against land based missiles, causing much more damage than if they only used air bursts against cities. I’m inclined to think they are right.

time0ut 5y ago

I’ve read this book a few times now. It is quite interesting. I am pretty sure if there was a nuclear war I would just be screwed. I live about 15 miles from a naval base. My entire survival strategy starts with “hope that Russian ICBMs are accurate so I don’t die instantly…”. Not sure anything in the book would help me after that point, but worth a shot I guess.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Pretty sure significant targets - larger cities and significant facilities - would get a barrage instead of a single weapon. Multiple relatively small warheads spread across an area are far more damaging than a single super-nuke, which is why Tsar Bombas fell out of fashion. At one point it was rumoured there were hundreds of warheads aimed at Moscow. Even Dick Cheney was shocked when he found out. It's a reasonable guess Washington and London would have had the same treatment. I'm not sure anyone even knows what that would do to an area, except possibly turn it into a pool of radioactive lava.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > Pretty sure significant targets - larger cities and significant facilities - would get a barrage instead of a single weapon. Yup, this was already discussed (I forgot where, sorry) before, I think the US back in the 70s or 80s had plans for example to send at least 5 or 6 nukes on each target, just to be sure they would be completely destroyed. And if I remember correctly they had several dozens of thousands of targets, meaning that everything apart from small villages would be nuked to the ground. Even smaller cities, relatively speaking.

Borrible 5y ago

Making babies, quickly and a lot? Because of a higher mortality rate, decreased fertility, increased rate of deformities, and an overall short and brutal life? I mean, you have to think about the future... https://bookauthority.org/books/best-obstetrics-and-gynecology-books https://bookauthority.org/books/best-obstetrics-and-gynecolo...

cwbuckm12 5y ago

I have the original handbook somewhere in my basement. Good read.

gumby 5y ago

I took a class on strategic deterrence and game theory as an undergraduate in the early 80s. Even then I took it in part for its weirdness — in my entire life I was not able to take the threat of global nuclear war seriously. Basically I figured that it wouldn’t really happen because the consequences were too extreme; in the case of accidental discharge the ability to survive was a crapshoot at best Ly under my control (e,g. I live across the street from Draper Labs). In fact the preparations for fallout shelters and the like always seemed like a failure of imagination.

Haga 5y ago

Nuclear war has prevented the traditional mass slaughter of the Lowe classes as social steam valve for about three generations now. I'm grateful for that. Gametheory and mass destruction tamed some of our worst psychopathsiin power.

ThinkBeat 5y ago

When I was in the army, we would have drills to dig shallow "graves" quickly and then jump into them. They were not officially called graves. By the time you had intelligence needed to start digging your grave it was probably only good for dying in anyways.

CapstanRoller 5y ago
Assuming you're not hit directly, those 'shell scrapes' are excellent for protecting against conventional explosives and associated shrapnel, though.

blueyes 5y ago

This Freeman Dyson interview is very apropos: https://www.manhattanprojectvoices.org/oral-histories/freeman-dysons-interview https://www.manhattanprojectvoices.org/oral-histories/freema... Kelly: People think that if you have a technological edge, that you can vanquish your enemy, but obviously you have to keep your technological edge sharp. Dyson: It’s the same with civil defense. The Germans were being heavily bombed for about three years, so they got very good at civil defense. Whereas in Britain we were only bombed for six months, we never really got the hang of it. It was a huge difference. It actually took ten times as many bombs to kill one person in Germany as it did to kill one person in London. That was one of the reasons why the campaign failed, that the German civil defense was just very good. You can actually save people with civil defense. Most people are unaware of that. Civil defense does work. It would also work against nuclear bombs. Of course, that is a politically unpopular view, but it happens to be true. Kelly: Can you explain that? Dyson: Well, most of the people who are killed in nuclear bombing are killed by blast and fire, which is sort of old-fashioned, it has nothing to do nuclear radiation. Some people die of nuclear radiation, but that’s a small number by comparison. If you are five feet underground, you are very well shielded from all of that. So most people, even in a nuclear bombing, would survive, if they are five feet underground. Of course, in Hiroshima, they didn’t have that. If the Japanese had had a couple of years, they would have learned, and probably faster than that. It’s quite unrealistic to imagine that, with good civil defense, that Hiroshima would have been so devastating.