4 ms·

I mean, depending on the scale of the conflict and explosion, nuke generally does equal dead. The variable is just how proximate to the explosion your death is

I mean, depending on the scale of the conflict and explosion, nuke generally does equal dead. The variable is just how proximate to the explosion your death is going to be.

echelon 4y ago
Stores of food, water, fuel, and the means to defend oneself can also increase odds and duration of survival. Food scarcity will place survivors into an unpleasant dog eat dog world. Zombie and disaster films are probably not far off in their portrayals of these apocalyptic survival scenarios. All of the niceties of modern civilization - friendly and neighborly coexistence - will likely be replaced with the desperate animal need to eat and survive. And without a central governing authority, or aid or help of any kind, the new social order will be brutal and unforgiving. I hope this never comes to pass.
- XorNot 4y ago
  The people who are going to die in the aftermath are going to be those who don't have any plan to play nice with others. The only practical survival strategy since the dawn of the human species has been the rapid establishment of as large a tribe as possible. Which is to say: the guy who decides to sit in place on a pile of resources is already dead, it's just a matter of when: if you're not establishing relations and trade, then you're just delaying the inevitable.
  - ggm 4y ago
    I think this is an underappreciated viewpoint. Survivalists simply look like well guarded stores for everyone else, and sooner or later there's something missing which demands barter or cooperation with those outside the fence. It's like settling for the lowest achievable short term peak for a small team rather than boosting the entire surface to a lower maximum of wider reach, or some gradient to a higher peak closer to normality. I won't be storming the bunkers, I'll be asking scientists at the university campus what support role lets them get on with highly productive labour, or helping at a hospital or sewage farm. Looking at postwar recovery in Germany, food for labour cleared the bombed streets (mainly women too) and we'll see a lot of that, followed by more complex labour. Hunkering behind a wall with ammo and batteries won't get there. They're going to have to come to an accommodation with society at large and assuming guns equals boss is silly. Boss of what? A slave culture? The city state next door looks better and better.
    - toss1 4y ago
      Yup, I read an account of a man who survived for a couple of years in the hellscape of Sarajevo during the war. He had a lot of detail, but the big points were that you needed a group. "A lone wolf is a dead wolf", he said. The key to survival was your group, being able to pool resources, watch each other's back, go out in groups, negotiate, etc. (Sorry I've not got a link right now.)
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - ggm 4y ago
        The key point in context being negotiate. Drama on TV goes to confrontation for an asymmetric outcome ("winning") when real live goes to BATNA and "win-win" more often. (I am hopelessly naieve!)
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > All of the niceties of modern civilization - friendly and neighborly coexistence - will likely be replaced with the desperate animal need to eat and survive. And without a central governing authority, or aid or help of any kind, the new social order will be brutal and unforgiving. I understand that's a bit of a modern ideological fiction. Social cooperation has a big survival advantage, and in difficult or precarious situations people often land on a strategy of being very generous and helpful to secure social capital to get assistance when they need it. So our big society filled with lots of anonymous individuals obsessing over rights granted by a sophisticated state would probably give way to smaller societies controlled by interpersonal relationships with people obsessing over reputation.
jillesvangurp 4y ago
There's a sweet spot where you have a few moments to reflect on the shockwave that is heading your way after you see the bright flash of the explosion (and are probably blinded by that). Far enough away that you can still dive into a corner for protection and survival. Anywhere too close and it won't matter what you do. But there's an appreciable range where the shock wave is going to do significant but potentially survivable damage and where you might have a couple of seconds to do something.

I mean, depending on the scale of the conflict and explosion, nuke generally does equal dead. The variable is just how proximate to the explosion your death is going to be.

echelon 4y ago

Stores of food, water, fuel, and the means to defend oneself can also increase odds and duration of survival. Food scarcity will place survivors into an unpleasant dog eat dog world. Zombie and disaster films are probably not far off in their portrayals of these apocalyptic survival scenarios. All of the niceties of modern civilization - friendly and neighborly coexistence - will likely be replaced with the desperate animal need to eat and survive. And without a central governing authority, or aid or help of any kind, the new social order will be brutal and unforgiving. I hope this never comes to pass.

XorNot 4y ago
The people who are going to die in the aftermath are going to be those who don't have any plan to play nice with others. The only practical survival strategy since the dawn of the human species has been the rapid establishment of as large a tribe as possible. Which is to say: the guy who decides to sit in place on a pile of resources is already dead, it's just a matter of when: if you're not establishing relations and trade, then you're just delaying the inevitable.
- ggm 4y ago
  I think this is an underappreciated viewpoint. Survivalists simply look like well guarded stores for everyone else, and sooner or later there's something missing which demands barter or cooperation with those outside the fence. It's like settling for the lowest achievable short term peak for a small team rather than boosting the entire surface to a lower maximum of wider reach, or some gradient to a higher peak closer to normality. I won't be storming the bunkers, I'll be asking scientists at the university campus what support role lets them get on with highly productive labour, or helping at a hospital or sewage farm. Looking at postwar recovery in Germany, food for labour cleared the bombed streets (mainly women too) and we'll see a lot of that, followed by more complex labour. Hunkering behind a wall with ammo and batteries won't get there. They're going to have to come to an accommodation with society at large and assuming guns equals boss is silly. Boss of what? A slave culture? The city state next door looks better and better.
  - toss1 4y ago
    Yup, I read an account of a man who survived for a couple of years in the hellscape of Sarajevo during the war. He had a lot of detail, but the big points were that you needed a group. "A lone wolf is a dead wolf", he said. The key to survival was your group, being able to pool resources, watch each other's back, go out in groups, negotiate, etc. (Sorry I've not got a link right now.)
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ggm 4y ago
      The key point in context being negotiate. Drama on TV goes to confrontation for an asymmetric outcome ("winning") when real live goes to BATNA and "win-win" more often. (I am hopelessly naieve!)
tablespoon 4y ago
> All of the niceties of modern civilization - friendly and neighborly coexistence - will likely be replaced with the desperate animal need to eat and survive. And without a central governing authority, or aid or help of any kind, the new social order will be brutal and unforgiving. I understand that's a bit of a modern ideological fiction. Social cooperation has a big survival advantage, and in difficult or precarious situations people often land on a strategy of being very generous and helpful to secure social capital to get assistance when they need it. So our big society filled with lots of anonymous individuals obsessing over rights granted by a sophisticated state would probably give way to smaller societies controlled by interpersonal relationships with people obsessing over reputation.

jillesvangurp 4y ago

There's a sweet spot where you have a few moments to reflect on the shockwave that is heading your way after you see the bright flash of the explosion (and are probably blinded by that). Far enough away that you can still dive into a corner for protection and survival. Anywhere too close and it won't matter what you do. But there's an appreciable range where the shock wave is going to do significant but potentially survivable damage and where you might have a couple of seconds to do something.