5 ms·

This was a common take, and is the opposite one intended. Both "Threads" and "The Day After" had this problem. A contemporary take: https://lifeinhellarchive

This was a common take, and is the opposite one intended. Both "Threads" and "The Day After" had this problem. A contemporary take: https://lifeinhellarchives.tumblr.com/image/176779648696 https://lifeinhellarchives.tumblr.com/image/176779648696 You see? The "Adult Version" is that after a nuclear war everybody dies. But in fact, that had been the received wisdom for many years. These 1980s movies were actually trying to impress upon people that after such a war, there would be survivors who would keeping suffering for a long time. "Threads" however annoyed me in that everyone seem to regress to a pre-civilization mental state, even losing their grammar. In reality, much of the world (including most of the southern hemisphere) would be untouched and would be sufficient to get the supply chains sort-of working again (at least in a few decades).

pavlov 3y ago
What would be the incentive for people in the southern hemisphere to help nuclear wasteland Europe to get back on its feet?
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That they might have family there / to be able to accommodate any refugees.
- prox 3y ago
  Basic humanity and humanitarian help.
- mynameishere 3y ago
  Zero. In the first few years, they would likely trade grain and oil for hard money (gold, silver). Once that played out, much of the effected world would likely have economies similar to the late 19th century--materials extraction, textiles, agriculture. The result would be a generation or two of poverty, but not a total collapse. Also, the "nuclear wasteland" business is pure sci fi.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  The Europeans are people they can sell stuff too. China doesn't manufacturer everything you use in your daily life for humanitarian reasons. They do it because they can earn money doing it.
- chasd00 3y ago
  > What would be the incentive for people in the southern hemisphere to help nuclear wasteland Europe to get back on its feet? Money and power
red-iron-pine 3y ago
> at least in a few decades there is an awful lot of misery that would happen for a few decades this isn't going to be Fallout 3, it's going to be The Road for a few decades.
- jacknews 3y ago
  really neither. Hollywood likes to portray these dog-eat-dog lone ranger scenarios, but the reality is people band together. A good many major cities would be decimated, but even just an hours drive away you'd be mostly fine, at least after a week or two when the fallout has fallen out. I don't mean to downplay an all-out nuclear exchange as no big deal, obviously it would be an even worse disaster than ww2 etc, but it wouldn't end civilization let alone all life.
jacknews 3y ago
And if you look at how many nukes there are, and factor by how many would actually work (maybe not that meny of russia's for example), it would be very far from global annihilation. Sure, the whole global economic system we have now would be totally disrupted, and we'd spend a few decades rebuilding certain areas, or cordoning off others, but life would go on.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  This is almost comically incorrect. A few decades rebuilding? We'd be lucky to come through that with even a semblance of our institutions and capabilities in one piece. Never mind the population...
  - jacknews 3y ago
    no, it's not the 80s anymore. There are simply not enough nukes to destroy even every large city or even a majority of them, and then there are all the military targets that would be a priority anyway. Just 10s of miles away, you'd be mostly fine anyway, after the fallout has fallen. Nuclear winter is not a real thing, or at least, it's on a similar scale to a large volcanic eruption. ie at least a "year without a summer", and maybe a decade of cooler weather, but not the years of total darkness we're led to imagine. Of course, with completely destroyed supply chains, bad crop yields etc, and then inevitable fighting over resources, the aftermath would see many millions of further deaths. But look at somewhere like Shenzhen. A small fishing village just 40-50 years ago. Or Berlin after WW2. Sure, we'll rebuild in a few decades. Perhaps not to the same levels of grotesque consumerism and waste we have now maybe. I mean, this is obviously not something we want to happen, at almost any cost (for example, russia winning in ukraine would be infinitely preferable, even for most ukrainians), but it would not be the end of even civilization, let alone humanity, or all life.

pavlov 3y ago

What would be the incentive for people in the southern hemisphere to help nuclear wasteland Europe to get back on its feet?

jacquesm 3y ago
That they might have family there / to be able to accommodate any refugees.
prox 3y ago
Basic humanity and humanitarian help.
mynameishere 3y ago
Zero. In the first few years, they would likely trade grain and oil for hard money (gold, silver). Once that played out, much of the effected world would likely have economies similar to the late 19th century--materials extraction, textiles, agriculture. The result would be a generation or two of poverty, but not a total collapse. Also, the "nuclear wasteland" business is pure sci fi.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
The Europeans are people they can sell stuff too. China doesn't manufacturer everything you use in your daily life for humanitarian reasons. They do it because they can earn money doing it.
chasd00 3y ago
> What would be the incentive for people in the southern hemisphere to help nuclear wasteland Europe to get back on its feet? Money and power

red-iron-pine 3y ago

> at least in a few decades there is an awful lot of misery that would happen for a few decades this isn't going to be Fallout 3, it's going to be The Road for a few decades.

jacknews 3y ago
really neither. Hollywood likes to portray these dog-eat-dog lone ranger scenarios, but the reality is people band together. A good many major cities would be decimated, but even just an hours drive away you'd be mostly fine, at least after a week or two when the fallout has fallen out. I don't mean to downplay an all-out nuclear exchange as no big deal, obviously it would be an even worse disaster than ww2 etc, but it wouldn't end civilization let alone all life.

jacknews 3y ago

And if you look at how many nukes there are, and factor by how many would actually work (maybe not that meny of russia's for example), it would be very far from global annihilation. Sure, the whole global economic system we have now would be totally disrupted, and we'd spend a few decades rebuilding certain areas, or cordoning off others, but life would go on.

jacquesm 3y ago
This is almost comically incorrect. A few decades rebuilding? We'd be lucky to come through that with even a semblance of our institutions and capabilities in one piece. Never mind the population...
- jacknews 3y ago
  no, it's not the 80s anymore. There are simply not enough nukes to destroy even every large city or even a majority of them, and then there are all the military targets that would be a priority anyway. Just 10s of miles away, you'd be mostly fine anyway, after the fallout has fallen. Nuclear winter is not a real thing, or at least, it's on a similar scale to a large volcanic eruption. ie at least a "year without a summer", and maybe a decade of cooler weather, but not the years of total darkness we're led to imagine. Of course, with completely destroyed supply chains, bad crop yields etc, and then inevitable fighting over resources, the aftermath would see many millions of further deaths. But look at somewhere like Shenzhen. A small fishing village just 40-50 years ago. Or Berlin after WW2. Sure, we'll rebuild in a few decades. Perhaps not to the same levels of grotesque consumerism and waste we have now maybe. I mean, this is obviously not something we want to happen, at almost any cost (for example, russia winning in ukraine would be infinitely preferable, even for most ukrainians), but it would not be the end of even civilization, let alone humanity, or all life.