7 ms·

Overpressure is no joke. That said the conclusions of the study encourage me to stand in front of a concrete wall as soon as I am aware of incoming ICBMs. My s

Overpressure is no joke. That said the conclusions of the study encourage me to stand in front of a concrete wall as soon as I am aware of incoming ICBMs. My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately. This would spare us exposure to subsequent famine and the loss of things like acetaminophen and central heating, not to mention civil society. I do not subscribe to nuclear winter scare-theory. My greater concern is that the petrochemical supply and complex chemical chain will be largely destroyed in any kind of a material nuclear exchange. Without fossil fuel subsidies for agriculture mass starvation is certain.

alwayslikethis 4y ago
On the plus(?) side, there will be plenty of remaining fertilizers in stock to grow food to feed the now much smaller population for a good while.
Swizec 4y ago
> This would spare us exposure to subsequent famine and the loss of things like acetaminophen and central heating, not to mention civil society Obviously MAD has changed things, but Hiroshima was back to normal in about 2 years. Power was restored in just a few days for example. https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/askexpert/recovery-time-nuclear-disaster https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/askexpert/recovery... https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/18/story-of-cities-hiroshima-japan-nuclear-destruction https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/18/story-of-citi...
- lordgroff 4y ago
  It's... Not even comparable. That bomb is a quaint toy compared to modern nuclear arsenal, and of course nobody would be launching one or two nukes today because it isn't 1945. Mass starvation, disease, loss of key infrastructure and any sort of industrial capacity would await those "lucky" to survive initial blasts. I'm not as convinced nuclear winter is a scare theory either, I think it's hard to say, but it frankly doesn't even have to factor in the slightest.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  There's a difference between destroying one city with a relatively small bomb and destroying most cities and industrial infrastructure with relatively big bombs - including multiple hits on the biggest targets.
geysersam 4y ago
> Without fossil fuel subsidies for agriculture mass starvation is certain. Without fossile fuels for agriculture, starvation is certain. Without fossile fuel subsidies, we'd just pay a bit more for food and slightly less for other things.
- Nifty3929 4y ago
  And possibly not pay more for food either, given that there are often prices floors or other similar things. Remember that we usually have a vast surplus of food in the US. The govt at one point was running massive warehouses to store cheese, as a way to keep up milk prices. This is the origin of “government cheese.”
  - danuker 4y ago
    > government cheese TIL. See also: council juice
- 5e92cb50239222b 4y ago
  Many people in my country are already paying around half of their earnings for food. You can't really go much above that before dying of starvation.
  - bigfudge 4y ago
    Or substantial social changes. Rents and other costs would presumably need to change if this affected a majority? Edit: what I’m pointing to is that hunger is often in the context of sufficiency.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  Don't forget the fact that a few nations export massive surpluses of food. If the global trade chain is disrupted, their customers simply won't have enough food to eat. Most famines in the last 100 years were at least partially caused by an inability to supply food from neighboring or just slightly more distant regions.
Waterluvian 4y ago
I don’t anticipate calamity, nor do I prepare for one. But I’ve explored it as an experiment. My original plan was to see what happens and make a go of it, but to be prepared to take the quick way out if it becomes too horrifying. But now I have kids and I’m out of ideas. Maybe something about fleeing to my cottage where there’s fewer people and more nature.
- polished85 4y ago
  Its funny how much having kids changes the equation. Back when I was single I borderline welcomed the apocalypse. Now thinking of a breakdown in civil society concerns me greatly.
  - pelasaco 4y ago
    That's why older people cannot stand with young people asking for "no borders", "destroy the system", etc.. Because they have a lot at stake.
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    "Tis a fearful thing to love what death can touch."
- Haga 4y ago
  [dead]
beloch 4y ago
Why do you call nuclear winter a "scare-theory"? The short-term impact of a major nuclear exchange is fairly well supported by science. Nuclear explosions, particularly thermonuclear explosions, are powerful enough to propel fine particulate matter high enough into the atmosphere that no rain can wash it back to the ground. Unlike smoke from a forest fire, it will persist in the atmosphere for decades and spread globally, dimming the sun and negatively impacting global temperatures and insolation across the planet. That means crop failures for everyone, not just the combatants. A nuclear first-strike that successfully wipes out the enemy's ability to retaliate will likely still lead to global starvation for decades. While scary, this does make it less likely for a major nuclear power to ever use such a first strike. Even if you win, you lose.
- arnaudsm 4y ago
  I wish you were right, but autocratic leaders tend to ignore scientific warnings
  - vkou 4y ago
    I'm not sure why you needed to quantify autocratic. From what I have seen of democratic leaders, scientific warnings tend to enter their decision-making only when convenient.
    - pokepim 4y ago
      [dead]
- b212 4y ago
  “Even if you win, you lose.” AKA The Putin Way.
- dividedbyzero 4y ago
  Aerosols from very large forest fires do reach the stratosphere and linger for months or years and have short-term climate impact. Hard to imagine much of the northern hemisphere set ablaze by the blasts without there being such an impact.
scotty79 4y ago
I wonder how many people in zombie apocalypse (of a viral kind) would just infect themselves voluntarily to avoid getting chewed by the horde of zombies.
- filoleg 4y ago
  > I wonder how many people in zombie apocalypse (of a viral kind) would just infect themselves voluntarily to avoid getting chewed by the horde of zombies. Probably very few. Infecting yourself is pretty much an equivalent of killing yourself. Except in movies they often make it look like an extremely painful, prolonged, and torturous way of doing so. But I imagine quite many will resort to other methods of accomplishing the same end-result.
nine_k 4y ago
Fossil fuels is one thing. Synthetic fertilizers are another. Without them, it's often impossible to grow large amounts of crops on the available land. Even a relatively small, compared to a global nuclear exchange, war in Ukraine sent ripples across the foods markets, because the war affected some noticeable amounts of wheat grown in the world, of fertilizers produced in the world, and of natural gas powering fertilizer production elsewhere in Europe.
sulam 4y ago
I had a conversation with my wife about this. For context, I mostly agree with you, however this is something you and a spouse should agree on and have a plan for. We have two young girls, so there’s that. Additional context: my wife is Jewish by birth. Her reaction was immediate and unequivocal: we are going to do everything we possibly can to survive. I guess generations of natural selection on a genetically isolated population really -does- matter!
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  I am not sure how to tease "genetic" and "cultural" components apart in such cases. No one is, that is why the field of studying human behavior is such a politicized mess.
TexanFeller 4y ago
> loss of things like acetaminophen and central heating Needing to tough out headaches without Tylenol and wear a coat or put wood in the fireplace inside your cabin...post apocalyptic first world problems. edit: less moist
- Atheros 4y ago
  Your sense of humor is quite moist.
mattlondon 4y ago
> My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately Amen to that. With a family with small kids, I can only hope that we don't even realise what is happening and die instantly. When COVID was new and we were deep in lockdown and there was no vaccine in sight, there was a definite feeling of "will the world ever be like it was again? Is everything we knew irreversibly changed forever?". It was a worrying feeling. I can only imagine how depressing and frankly terrifying it must feel to know that life as you knew it was over (and it will never "go back to normal"), and you and your kids are now going to live in some sort of hellscape and probably die of some "trivial" injury or accident, if you don't starve or get murdered first.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  >> My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately > Amen to that. With a family with small kids, I can only hope that we don't even realise what is happening and die instantly. You probably won't, though, unless you deliberately decide stay very close to a high-value target at all times. IIRC, the casualty estimates in NukeMap (https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) show large amounts of the population would survive the initial blasts.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Have fun dealing with the global starvation that happens later.
    - lukan 4y ago
      No one talks about fun here, but it is something different wanting to go on despise hardships vs. giving all up (and the people dependant on you).
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > Have fun dealing with the global starvation that happens later. My point is: most of the people wishing they'd die instantly will probably have that "fun," too, unless they have weird habits meant to maximize that possibility that and/or a solid suicide plan (e.g. running around with a concealed-carry pistol).
simonebrunozzi 4y ago
> acetaminophen Wow, never read about this before. I see that it equates to Paracetamol. You mean that we would run out of that medicine? And if so, why is that? Happy if you could provide an explanation (I have no medical background, mind you).
- tablespoon 4y ago
  >> My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately. This would spare us exposure to subsequent famine and the loss of things like acetaminophen and central heating, not to mention civil society. > Wow, never read about this before. I see that it equates to Paracetamol. You mean that we would run out of that medicine? And if so, why is that? Happy if you could provide an explanation (I have no medical background, mind you). Not the op, but by "acetaminophen and central heating" he meant modern comforts and conveniences would go away.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Acetominophen is something we can do without. There are better analgesics available that don't destroy your liver.
ltbarcly3 4y ago
My sincere hope for my family is that weather patterns are 'nice' and we survive without significant fallout exposure. It's not as unlikely as it sounds, depending on where you are when the bombs fall. Beyond that things will not really be that bad. Society maintains continuity even through insane events like the black death or cities being bombed into ruins. I think this is because humans are socialized for a very long time, and have very little experience living through apocalypses, and have a hard time accepting the inevitability of their own deaths. Society doesn't break down during mass starvation even. Speaking of mass starvation and lack of clean water, that will be how most people who survive about 3 days post nuclear war will die. This is easily avoidable, water filtration/sanitization solutions are extremely cheap, or even free if you have a bucket and some sand. Storing 1 year of calories takes so little space and is so cheap it isn't even a consideration. Mass starvation will not be a problem in the long run because it will be a huge problem much sooner. People will starve in the 2 months post event because of the temporary breakdown in logistics. After 6 months trains will be running again and there will be plenty of food, and no cities full of people to eat it.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Storing 1 year of calories takes so little space and is so cheap it isn't even a consideration. Please explain. My gut feel intuition is that you have to sacrifice at least a typical American closet's worth of space to do that.
  - ltbarcly3 4y ago
    A 50 lb bag of rice would feed you for 50 days and you can fit about 8 of them in a grocery store cart.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > A 50 lb bag of rice would feed you for 50 days and you can fit about 8 of them in a grocery store cart. So that would be like 1/4 of a US closet for one person? I know rice will get bugs if you don't eat it in a reasonable amount of time, so that would be a concern.
dTal 4y ago
Oh no, no acetaminophen and central heating! Guess I'll just die! In all seriousness - even if you sincerely plan to commit suicide (and take your family with you?) if life gets harder, why use the nuclear attack itself to do it? Why close off options? Why not attempt to survive, and reassess afterwards if you really think life still isn't worth living?
- sklargh 4y ago
  My dude, if you are among the lucky few who survive the initial filter of starvation, disease and mass violence following a nuclear conflict I wish you the best leading your band of raiders across the Great Plains or Central Valley feasting on the scraps of civilization and eventually dying of dysentery, typhus, scarlet fever or simple exposure. I am not here for that lifestyle.
  - dTal 4y ago
    Again, if you're going to commit suicide, why use the nuclear attack itself to do it? Why not wait and see if this apocalyptic vision of yours actually comes true? If it does, it won't be difficult to commit suicide at that point, you won't have lost anything. And if it doesn't, you'll be glad you lived. Plus, yaknow, your wife/kids/dog/$DEPENDENTS might feel differently.
    - sklargh 4y ago
      I don’t understand why you perceive being struck by the effects of a nuclear warhead launched by a hostile power as suicide.
      - dTal 4y ago
        The suicide part is deliberately avoiding actions that would increase your chances of survival because, and I quote, "My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately".
  - tablespoon 4y ago

alwayslikethis 4y ago

On the plus(?) side, there will be plenty of remaining fertilizers in stock to grow food to feed the now much smaller population for a good while.

Swizec 4y ago

> This would spare us exposure to subsequent famine and the loss of things like acetaminophen and central heating, not to mention civil society Obviously MAD has changed things, but Hiroshima was back to normal in about 2 years. Power was restored in just a few days for example. https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/askexpert/recovery-time-nuclear-disaster https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/askexpert/recovery... https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/18/story-of-cities-hiroshima-japan-nuclear-destruction https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/18/story-of-citi...

lordgroff 4y ago
It's... Not even comparable. That bomb is a quaint toy compared to modern nuclear arsenal, and of course nobody would be launching one or two nukes today because it isn't 1945. Mass starvation, disease, loss of key infrastructure and any sort of industrial capacity would await those "lucky" to survive initial blasts. I'm not as convinced nuclear winter is a scare theory either, I think it's hard to say, but it frankly doesn't even have to factor in the slightest.
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
There's a difference between destroying one city with a relatively small bomb and destroying most cities and industrial infrastructure with relatively big bombs - including multiple hits on the biggest targets.

geysersam 4y ago

> Without fossil fuel subsidies for agriculture mass starvation is certain. Without fossile fuels for agriculture, starvation is certain. Without fossile fuel subsidies, we'd just pay a bit more for food and slightly less for other things.

Nifty3929 4y ago
And possibly not pay more for food either, given that there are often prices floors or other similar things. Remember that we usually have a vast surplus of food in the US. The govt at one point was running massive warehouses to store cheese, as a way to keep up milk prices. This is the origin of “government cheese.”
- danuker 4y ago
  > government cheese TIL. See also: council juice
5e92cb50239222b 4y ago
Many people in my country are already paying around half of their earnings for food. You can't really go much above that before dying of starvation.
- bigfudge 4y ago
  Or substantial social changes. Rents and other costs would presumably need to change if this affected a majority? Edit: what I’m pointing to is that hunger is often in the context of sufficiency.
inglor_cz 4y ago
Don't forget the fact that a few nations export massive surpluses of food. If the global trade chain is disrupted, their customers simply won't have enough food to eat. Most famines in the last 100 years were at least partially caused by an inability to supply food from neighboring or just slightly more distant regions.

Waterluvian 4y ago

I don’t anticipate calamity, nor do I prepare for one. But I’ve explored it as an experiment. My original plan was to see what happens and make a go of it, but to be prepared to take the quick way out if it becomes too horrifying. But now I have kids and I’m out of ideas. Maybe something about fleeing to my cottage where there’s fewer people and more nature.

polished85 4y ago
Its funny how much having kids changes the equation. Back when I was single I borderline welcomed the apocalypse. Now thinking of a breakdown in civil society concerns me greatly.
- pelasaco 4y ago
  That's why older people cannot stand with young people asking for "no borders", "destroy the system", etc.. Because they have a lot at stake.
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  "Tis a fearful thing to love what death can touch."
Haga 4y ago
[dead]

beloch 4y ago

Why do you call nuclear winter a "scare-theory"? The short-term impact of a major nuclear exchange is fairly well supported by science. Nuclear explosions, particularly thermonuclear explosions, are powerful enough to propel fine particulate matter high enough into the atmosphere that no rain can wash it back to the ground. Unlike smoke from a forest fire, it will persist in the atmosphere for decades and spread globally, dimming the sun and negatively impacting global temperatures and insolation across the planet. That means crop failures for everyone, not just the combatants. A nuclear first-strike that successfully wipes out the enemy's ability to retaliate will likely still lead to global starvation for decades. While scary, this does make it less likely for a major nuclear power to ever use such a first strike. Even if you win, you lose.

arnaudsm 4y ago
I wish you were right, but autocratic leaders tend to ignore scientific warnings
- vkou 4y ago
  I'm not sure why you needed to quantify autocratic. From what I have seen of democratic leaders, scientific warnings tend to enter their decision-making only when convenient.
  - pokepim 4y ago
    [dead]
b212 4y ago
“Even if you win, you lose.” AKA The Putin Way.
dividedbyzero 4y ago
Aerosols from very large forest fires do reach the stratosphere and linger for months or years and have short-term climate impact. Hard to imagine much of the northern hemisphere set ablaze by the blasts without there being such an impact.

scotty79 4y ago

I wonder how many people in zombie apocalypse (of a viral kind) would just infect themselves voluntarily to avoid getting chewed by the horde of zombies.

filoleg 4y ago
> I wonder how many people in zombie apocalypse (of a viral kind) would just infect themselves voluntarily to avoid getting chewed by the horde of zombies. Probably very few. Infecting yourself is pretty much an equivalent of killing yourself. Except in movies they often make it look like an extremely painful, prolonged, and torturous way of doing so. But I imagine quite many will resort to other methods of accomplishing the same end-result.

nine_k 4y ago

Fossil fuels is one thing. Synthetic fertilizers are another. Without them, it's often impossible to grow large amounts of crops on the available land. Even a relatively small, compared to a global nuclear exchange, war in Ukraine sent ripples across the foods markets, because the war affected some noticeable amounts of wheat grown in the world, of fertilizers produced in the world, and of natural gas powering fertilizer production elsewhere in Europe.

sulam 4y ago

I had a conversation with my wife about this. For context, I mostly agree with you, however this is something you and a spouse should agree on and have a plan for. We have two young girls, so there’s that. Additional context: my wife is Jewish by birth. Her reaction was immediate and unequivocal: we are going to do everything we possibly can to survive. I guess generations of natural selection on a genetically isolated population really -does- matter!

inglor_cz 4y ago
I am not sure how to tease "genetic" and "cultural" components apart in such cases. No one is, that is why the field of studying human behavior is such a politicized mess.

TexanFeller 4y ago

> loss of things like acetaminophen and central heating Needing to tough out headaches without Tylenol and wear a coat or put wood in the fireplace inside your cabin...post apocalyptic first world problems. edit: less moist

Atheros 4y ago
Your sense of humor is quite moist.

mattlondon 4y ago

> My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately Amen to that. With a family with small kids, I can only hope that we don't even realise what is happening and die instantly. When COVID was new and we were deep in lockdown and there was no vaccine in sight, there was a definite feeling of "will the world ever be like it was again? Is everything we knew irreversibly changed forever?". It was a worrying feeling. I can only imagine how depressing and frankly terrifying it must feel to know that life as you knew it was over (and it will never "go back to normal"), and you and your kids are now going to live in some sort of hellscape and probably die of some "trivial" injury or accident, if you don't starve or get murdered first.

tablespoon 4y ago
>> My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately > Amen to that. With a family with small kids, I can only hope that we don't even realise what is happening and die instantly. You probably won't, though, unless you deliberately decide stay very close to a high-value target at all times. IIRC, the casualty estimates in NukeMap (https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) show large amounts of the population would survive the initial blasts.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Have fun dealing with the global starvation that happens later.
  - lukan 4y ago
    No one talks about fun here, but it is something different wanting to go on despise hardships vs. giving all up (and the people dependant on you).
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Have fun dealing with the global starvation that happens later. My point is: most of the people wishing they'd die instantly will probably have that "fun," too, unless they have weird habits meant to maximize that possibility that and/or a solid suicide plan (e.g. running around with a concealed-carry pistol).

simonebrunozzi 4y ago

> acetaminophen Wow, never read about this before. I see that it equates to Paracetamol. You mean that we would run out of that medicine? And if so, why is that? Happy if you could provide an explanation (I have no medical background, mind you).

tablespoon 4y ago
>> My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately. This would spare us exposure to subsequent famine and the loss of things like acetaminophen and central heating, not to mention civil society. > Wow, never read about this before. I see that it equates to Paracetamol. You mean that we would run out of that medicine? And if so, why is that? Happy if you could provide an explanation (I have no medical background, mind you). Not the op, but by "acetaminophen and central heating" he meant modern comforts and conveniences would go away.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Acetominophen is something we can do without. There are better analgesics available that don't destroy your liver.

ltbarcly3 4y ago

My sincere hope for my family is that weather patterns are 'nice' and we survive without significant fallout exposure. It's not as unlikely as it sounds, depending on where you are when the bombs fall. Beyond that things will not really be that bad. Society maintains continuity even through insane events like the black death or cities being bombed into ruins. I think this is because humans are socialized for a very long time, and have very little experience living through apocalypses, and have a hard time accepting the inevitability of their own deaths. Society doesn't break down during mass starvation even. Speaking of mass starvation and lack of clean water, that will be how most people who survive about 3 days post nuclear war will die. This is easily avoidable, water filtration/sanitization solutions are extremely cheap, or even free if you have a bucket and some sand. Storing 1 year of calories takes so little space and is so cheap it isn't even a consideration. Mass starvation will not be a problem in the long run because it will be a huge problem much sooner. People will starve in the 2 months post event because of the temporary breakdown in logistics. After 6 months trains will be running again and there will be plenty of food, and no cities full of people to eat it.

tablespoon 4y ago
> Storing 1 year of calories takes so little space and is so cheap it isn't even a consideration. Please explain. My gut feel intuition is that you have to sacrifice at least a typical American closet's worth of space to do that.
- ltbarcly3 4y ago
  A 50 lb bag of rice would feed you for 50 days and you can fit about 8 of them in a grocery store cart.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > A 50 lb bag of rice would feed you for 50 days and you can fit about 8 of them in a grocery store cart. So that would be like 1/4 of a US closet for one person? I know rice will get bugs if you don't eat it in a reasonable amount of time, so that would be a concern.

dTal 4y ago

Oh no, no acetaminophen and central heating! Guess I'll just die! In all seriousness - even if you sincerely plan to commit suicide (and take your family with you?) if life gets harder, why use the nuclear attack itself to do it? Why close off options? Why not attempt to survive, and reassess afterwards if you really think life still isn't worth living?

sklargh 4y ago
My dude, if you are among the lucky few who survive the initial filter of starvation, disease and mass violence following a nuclear conflict I wish you the best leading your band of raiders across the Great Plains or Central Valley feasting on the scraps of civilization and eventually dying of dysentery, typhus, scarlet fever or simple exposure. I am not here for that lifestyle.
- dTal 4y ago
  Again, if you're going to commit suicide, why use the nuclear attack itself to do it? Why not wait and see if this apocalyptic vision of yours actually comes true? If it does, it won't be difficult to commit suicide at that point, you won't have lost anything. And if it doesn't, you'll be glad you lived. Plus, yaknow, your wife/kids/dog/$DEPENDENTS might feel differently.
  - sklargh 4y ago
    I don’t understand why you perceive being struck by the effects of a nuclear warhead launched by a hostile power as suicide.
    - dTal 4y ago
      The suicide part is deliberately avoiding actions that would increase your chances of survival because, and I quote, "My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately".
- tablespoon 4y ago