5 ms·
The preferred way to survive nuclear war is to not to provoke one in the first place.
by ohiovr 5y ago
The preferred way to survive nuclear war is to not to provoke one in the first place.
- capableweb 5y agoNo, it's not. And thinking like that is not helpful. "Best way to get rid of a drug addiction is to not get addicted in the first place" is similarly helpful, which is not at all. There are ways to act that maximises the chance of surviving a nuclear attack, just like there are ways of maximising the chance of getting rid of a addiction.
- JacobThreeThree 5y agoThe preferred way to survive nuclear war is to maximize the chance of not provoking one in the first place.
- q1w2 5y agoAgain, you're doing a semantic dance around the question. I, personally, am not in control of global politics. However I am, personally, in control of building a shelter in my basement.
- firebaze 5y agoYou could do both, though. Take care lunatics don't cause global disruption by influencing your sphere of influence. Works in recursion, at least.
- ekianjo 5y ago> There are ways to act that maximises the chance of surviving a nuclear attack, This reads like a monty python skit
- andrepd 5y agoIf you survive a nuclear attack you will wish you were dead. Any "nuclear attack survivability guide" is probably counterproductive because it reinforces the illusion that there is any such thing as a world the day after a nuclear attack. It's all over.
- q1w2 5y agoThis is complete nonsense. You can absolutely survive a nuclear war if you are prepared. Maybe you'd prefer not to bother preparing because you think the probability is too low of it happening, but you cannot make that choice for the rest of us.
- ohiovr 5y agoJust not as long as we could before the war is the point I wish to make.
- quickthrowman 5y agoCan you survive your fellow citizens trying to murder you to take your things? I’m not concerned with the bombs themselves, but more so the total collapse of civil authority in the event of a total nuclear exchange between say, the US and Russia. There are a lot of small arms in the US.
- poulpy123 5y agoNobody is trying to prevent you anything....but he's right: surviving the blast and the fallout is one thing, surviving the collapse of society another
- firebaze 5y agoWith current warheads, it (unfortunately) is survivable. It's more or less as if any city on the world looks like germany after WW2 - plus some radiation, but most of it is gone after a few weeks. Fucked up, sure. But survivable for some.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y agoBut at this point you need to ask, what for? Surviving a conventional attack is completely different - you move somewhere else and live on, possibly coping with PTSD. Surviving a nuclear war means only prolonged suffering with no purpose, that's all.
- ohiovr 5y agoUnfortunately taking the life of innocents to save some semblance of an empire is a risk the powers are willing to take. You cannot imagine the stakes here. After this event even if it is confined to just the aggressors it will lead to a life of hardship for you that will never end. Peace is always better than war and its troubles if it can be avoided. No one knows the aftermath. We have to see it with our own eyes. Ever seen a man suffering from bone cancer? That could be you and me someday. You can never break an addiction you want to have.
- itisit 5y agoPrevention is better than cure.