If a nuclear holocaust happened in 1975, what would 2016 be like?

>>565207
Watch the film Threads

Not kidding

emerging from a nuclear winter, with 95% of all life on the planet wiped out

>>565207
What if Hitler won the Moon War?

>>565218
Jesus Christ, I remember the first time I watched Threads. The combination of the horrors of the nuclear holocaust in one moment and the death count in the next (especially since the numbers are written like on an old 70s computer) make for an eerie experience. The fact that it was made in the 70s is a plus to me.

I can't imagine what it must have felt like watching the movie back then, when the nuclear scare was still a thing.

File: Picture-26.jpg (620KB, 1359x984px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 1359x984px

>>565280
Film is from 1984 but I completely agree. It's a must watch.

>>565280
Reminds me of the game "Defcon: Everybody Dies" where you launch nukes at enemy cities and when one hits text appears with something like "London hit, 1.2 million dead" with this spooky soundtrack playing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIIZp8fPHXs

>>565218
I think this movie is anti nuclear war propaganda

I mean, I understand why people wouldn't want a nuclear war, but I think the effects portrayed in Threads are vastly exxagerated. For example, I dont think nuclear winter is actually a thing

>>565311
Then I fucking hope nobody like you ever gets into a position of power.

>>565316
Relax man, I know that an nuclear war would be bad.
It just wouldn't be as bad as portrayed in media.
Sure, a ton of people in cities would die, but life would go on, we wouldn't be reduced to a pre industrial civilization

>>565311
It was based on the science of the time (one of the advisors to the ptoduction was Carl Sagan btw), that was partially disproven later. A lot there is still accurate though. And of course it's a dramatization, not a science docu.

>>565311
>I think
>I think
>I don't think
Are you a nuclear physicist? Climatologist maybe?

>>565327
What sources do you have for this? Are you saying Carl Sagan was wrong?

>>565335
I use common sense.
Volcanos have errupted that had far more energy than all nukes combined, and they didn't cause a nuclear winter, so i doubt nukes would.

>>565331
>>565337
I think scientists back then had an interest in overexaggerating the effects of nuclear war (they didnt want such war to happen)

>>565349
>I use common sense.
Wow I feel much safer now.

>>565349
>I think scientists back then had an interest in overexaggerating the effects of nuclear war (they didnt want such war to happen)
That's a pretty big claim desu

>>565349
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter

>>565364
it's something that can be measured by instruments.
Not something that humans would experience or what would severly influence their lives.
Same would be with nuclear winter

>>565369
As of 2016 the nuclear arsenal of the United States alone is capable of producing a deep nuclear winter that would release approximately 150 Tg of soot into the atmosphere and would cause global temperatures to drop by 10 degrees for 3 to 4 years after the exchange. Long term temperature would be reduced by 5 degrees globally, bringing about average surface temperatures not seen since the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago.[1] These climate studies also show that for the first 3 to 4 years after the exchange less than 1% of solar radiation would reach the surface of the planet after which the sky would gradually clear over several decades. This has significant consequences for agriculture as it would shorten the growing season by 80 to 100 days effectively reducing the growing season to about half its current value. It is highly doubtful this would be long enough for conventional crops to survive.[2]

>>565349
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

>resulted in a drop of the global mean surface temperature by 3–5 °C and accelerated the transition from warm to cold temperatures of the last glacial cycle

Now imagine a global thermonuclear war which would set a cumulative area the size of Sweden on fire ejecting soot and ash into the atmosphere. Do some research and don't be so ignorant.

>>565370
Climate models further suggest that the ignition of 100 Hiroshima sized firestorms, representing about 0,03% of the nuclear arsenal, would produce a small nuclear winter.[3] With the models concluding that the size of this effect, from the cumulative products of 100 of these firestorms, would unmistakably cool the global climate by approximately 1 °C for two to three years; with which the authors speculate, but do not model, would have global agricultural losses as a consequence.[4] This temperature change would be comparable with the entire change caused by anthropogenic global warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750.

On the fundamental level, it is known that firestorms can inject soot smoke/aerosols into the stratosphere, as each natural occurrence of a wildfire firestorm has been found to "surprisingly frequently" produce minor nuclear winter effects, with short-lived drops in surface temperatures, confined to the global hemisphere that they burned in.[5][6][7][8] This is somewhat analogous to the frequent volcanic eruptions that inject sulfates into the stratosphere and thereby produce minor volcanic winter effects.

A suite of satellite- and aircraft-based firestorm-soot-monitoring instruments are at the forefront of attempts to accurately determine the lifespan, quantity, injection height, and optical properties of this smoke.[9][10][11][12][13] Information regarding all of these properties is necessary to truly ascertain the length and depth of the cooling effect of firestorms, independent of the nuclear winter computer model projections.

>>565370
This is an exaggeration

>>565356
>>565357
Look, the Japanese earthquake that caused Fukushima had way more enegry than the nuclear aresenal of the whole world combined, and Japan still stands.
So how are nukes supposed to destroy most of the world?

>>565375
A vulcanic erruption releases way more ash into atmosphere than a nuclear war

>>565377
>This is an exaggeration
It's a calculation.
They made calculations for less catastrophic scenarios too:


As for the 50 Tg case involving one third of current nuclear arsenals, they said that the simulation "produced climate responses very similar to those for the 150 Tg case, but with about half the amplitude," but that "the time scale of response is about the same." They did not discuss the implications for agriculture in depth, but noted that a 1986 study which assumed no food production for a year projected that "most of the people on the planet would run out of food and starve to death by then" and commented that their own results show that, "This period of no food production needs to be extended by many years, making the impacts of nuclear winter even worse than previously thought."

Another study focusing on ozone layer effects:

The authors used computational models developed by NCAR to simulate the climatic effects of a regional nuclear war in which 100 "small" (15 kt) weapons are detonated over cities. They concluded, in part, that
"global ozone losses of 20-50% over populated areas, levels unprecedented in human history, would accompany the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years. We calculate summer enhancements in UV indices of 30-80% over Mid-Latitudes, suggesting widespread damage to human health, agriculture, and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Killing frosts would reduce growing seasons by 10-40 days per year for 5 years. Surface temperatures would be reduced for more than 25 years, due to thermal inertia and albedo effects in the ocean and expanded sea ice. The combined cooling and enhanced UV would put significant pressures on global food supplies and could trigger a global nuclear famine."

>>565399
I don't have much trust in the ability of scientists to predict climate change

>>565401
I don't have much trust in your ability to predict anything.

>>565370
>>565376
If you read the paper, there is no basis given for the amount of soot that would be injected into the atmosphere, beyond a vague reference to earlier papers, that are not quoted, and it is assumed, that the stuff is injected into the stratosphere, rather than some lower layer. They assume that 30-100% of the nuclear arsenal would be used, and all of it over cities, and so they scale the effect without correcting for anything or considering how nuclear weapons would actually be used and how many of them would be used.

It's not "What would happen in case of a nuclear war", but "what would happen if we release X amount of soot in Y layer of the atmosphere.

Their result is at best a theoretical maximum, a realistic effect would probably be an order of magnitude smaller.

I hope this shit wasn't paid for with tax money.

Let's see who wrote it:
>Alan Robock
>He advocates nuclear disarmament and has met with Fidel Castro during a lecture trip to Cuba discuss the dangers of nuclear weapons.

>Georgiy Stenchikov
>born and raised in the Soviet Union, currently working at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia

The third is some NASA autist who probably didn't know what he was getting into.

Sound like cold war movie villains to me to be honest.
Cool study, senpai.

All of the fallout would be gone by now, and new societies will have emerged.

>>568847
It would be an interesting new world. All western states would have been destroyed, with most of the population dead, cities and industries destroyed, and the ground salted.

Who will rise now, and how will the third world do without their white oppressors?

Rhodesia survives

>>565311
>anti-nuclear propoganda
Are you saying this is a bad thing?

>>565207
in 40 years, most surviving people's still wouldn't be that organized, considering most electronics are still wiped out from the EMP blasts that came with the bombs, and it's just unorganized peoples struggling for survival.

the Fallout games did well by making it 180-200 years after the holocaust, giving survivors enough time to actually organize and create states again, develop technology again, and think about more than just where to get edible food and drinking water.

the first few generations after a nuclear holocaust would just be scared desperate survivors trying to stay alive. The Randall Clark computer entries actually paint it pretty well in Honest Hearts on what the first 30 years would be like.

File: FB_IMG_1453052868921.jpg (30KB, 500x483px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x483px

If it was full out nuclear war i guess it is more intresting to discuss that on a biology board then on a history board considering there would be no humanity left. Best case scenario some degenerated tribes would still exist, composed of descendents of former political elites who were sheltered long enough in their vaults. Also radiation fucks up reproduction capabilities big time.

>>565369
Wow, it's like you really don't understand how nuclear weapons work.

>>569066
Because the major powers would totally saturation bomb the entire third world, right?

>It was said that God, in order to test mankind which had become swelled with pride as in the time of Noah, had commanded the wise men of that age, among them the Blessed Leibowitz, to devise great engines of war such as had never before been upon the Earth, weapons of such might that they contained the very fires of Hell, and that God had suffered these magi to place the weapons in the hands of princes, and to say to each prince: “Only because the enemies have such a thing have we devised this for thee, in order that they may know that thou hast it also, and fear to strike. See to it, m’Lord, that thou fearest them as much as they shall now fear thee, that none may unleash this dread thing which we have wrought.” But the princes, putting the words of their wise men to naught, thought each to himself: If I but strike quickly enough, and in secret, I shall destroy these others in their sleep, and there will be none to fight back; the earth shall be mine.

>>569281
>Such was the folly of princes, and there followed the Flame Deluge Within weeks–some said days–it was ended, after the first unleashing of the hell-fire. Cities had become puddles of glass, surrounded by vast acreages of broken stone. While nations had vanished from the earth, the lands littered with bodies, both men and cattle, and all manner of beasts, together with the birds of the air and all things that flew, all things that swam in the rivers, crept in the grass, or burrowed in holes; having sickened and perished, they covered the land, and yet where the demons of the Fallout covered the countryside, the bodies for a time would not decay, except in contact with fertile earth. The great clouds of wrath engulfed the forests and the fields, withering trees and causing the crops to die. There were great deserts where once life was, and in those places of the Earth where men still lived, all were sickened by the poisoned air, so that, while some escaped death, none was left untouched; and many died even in those lands where the weapons had not struck, because of the poisoned air.

>>565382
Yes but it's more localized, usually happens in bumfuck nowhere and it depends whether you detonate the nukes in the air or on the ground. Krakatoa was 200 Megatons.
I noticed there's a lot of retards on 4chan recently who push this ''nuclear war is cool'' idea.
Nuclear war between big powers would be greatest catastrophe humanity has ever experienced.

guys

guys

what if the Reds lost the Russian civil war, the Pope declared a crusade in 1986 and Freddie Mercury didn't die in 1991?

http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/projected-us-casualties-and-destruction.pdf

Also, read this you morons.

>>565337
>Are you saying Carl Sagan was wrong?
Yes.

Sagan makes several assumptions that are incorrect.
1) The idea that 1 target gets 1 warhead. This is incorrect. Most targets will get between 2 to 3 warheads.
2) The idea that most targets will be urban area targets. The vast majority of targets will be nuclear weapons themselves and supporting infrastructure.
3) Failure to account for increased fire safety in modern building materials and codes.
4) Using Glasstones thermal effects data from Hiroshima. The USSBS found that the Hiroshima firestorm was due to the light construction of the buildings as well as the ubiquitous stoves that most Japanese buildings contained.
Post war testing found that the cal/cm2 needed to cause sustained ignition in most building materials was higher than Glasstone reported.
The best way to illustrate this is the pic in this post.
The thermal flash causes charring on the face of the house. The charing in turn releases smoke, that obscures the material and protects it from the continuing thermal effects. Post war testing showed that this effect on most building materials decreased the cal/cm2 that was received as time went on, making the thermal effects less effective.
You get charing, but not sustained ignition.

Nuclear winter depends on soot from massive firestorms.
Massive firestorms depend on sustained ignition.

Since you don't have sustained ignition, you do not have firestorms. No firestorms, no nuclear winter.

and lastly:
4) Sagan's particle injection model was shown to be fatally flawed when it predicted a cooling effect from the Gulf War fires. Such cooling did not materialize.

Every study that proposes nuclear winter makes the same errors outlined above. If you start with flawed assumptions, how can your conclusions be reliable?

>>569693
Whoever wrote that has no clue about nuclear strategy.

>>565401
You forgot #nobama #hoax #WotR #molonlabe

>>565207
Afghanistan with a higher cancer rate.

>>569669
But a le zombie apocalypse would be so kewl! Xd!
The last person you talked to is your companion and the object to your right is your weapon! Xdddddddddd!

If someone were to go back in time and caused a nuclear genocide and it affected our ancestors. Then we would be echoing in and out of reality; to weaken to only be conquered by the next time wave. Time density would weaken as those means wont be justifying those ends.
Now if it happened in 1975 in a linear scheme then we'd see it as history.

>>569281
>>569283
where is this from?

>>570168
Basically 2016 would be more prone to chaos as some would be desensitized if it affected them. The effects depend on the location,population size and influence. Theres a curve to stuff like that.

>Nuclear war would destroy nearly all life on Earth

Where does this meme come from? I have no doubt that a nuclear war could send us back to the stone age but I doubt it would directly cause widespread mass extinctions.

The white people left would still re-emerge as the no.1 superpower and be checking their irradiated privilege

>>565311
this guy is a fucking clod and obviously a nuclear war is almost guaranteed extinction and should be avoided at all cost

But they are incidentally correct that "nuclear winter" is pseudoscience

>>565349
When one volcano goes off, do all volcanoes go off?

Don't talk about shit you clearly know nothing about

>>565207
It would be pretty shitty

>>569256
Because everyone would be dead from nuclear winter.

>>570716
nice meme

>>570179
I think the book A Canticle For Liebowitz, I've never read it though.
It's about an order of monks in the Mojave desert who watch over all of human knowledge for thousands of years after a nuclear holocaust. It sounds really interesting, very highly acclaimed.

But I actually have no idea I'm just guessing that's where it's from.

>>570168
>>570181
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>565311
>anti nuclear propaganda
How is that a bad thing? Anything that can help stop the use of nuclear weapons is a good thing, and you could have to be a contrarian idiot of the highest degree to deny that. And any basic knowledge of meteorology would tell you that nuclear winter is something that would happen after a good amount of bombs are dropped

>>568883
It depends on what is spared; I would assume most of sub Saharan Africa, the Amazon, and most small island counties would be spared, as most countries or industries there aren't relevant enough for a nuke to target them. My bet in that scenario is either the Africans settle their differences and use their semi-modern tech they have to colonize and dominate the post nuclear world, or they could keep infighting long enough for the survivors in western countires to rebuild some form of their old society and recreate their homelands before the 3rd wolders can get to them

>>569256
No sure, nuclear war is so rational and the super powers totally didn't have huge enough arsenals to fuck everybodys shit up.

They would attack the third world just to prevent them from taking over. Nuclear war is game over guys, its basically well if i am going to die all of you fuckers going with me.

But even if the superpowers would leave the third world along AND nuclear Winter is just a meme like some people here assume there are a shit load of other problems.
You have whats left of first and second World governments and military desperatly looking for a not totally irradicated and destroyed place to survive. These people still would have some serious firepower at their disposal, ranging from b-weapons and left nuclear bombs to whats left of the conventional militaries. Then you have the total and utter collapse of global economy and logistics. What little is produced can't be traded properly. Talking about no fuel, no medicine etc. in whats left of humanity. Soon you have a huge ass famine because of two reasons, the collapse of modernized agriculture even in non-nuked countries and you have whats left over of economies heavily dependent on the west. Good luck with quasi colonial economies, i bet cash crops will be whats needed the most....

This combined with cancer rates though the roof, regional conflicts escalating without U.N and the superpowers. War for ressources , oh and nobody assumes the superpowers would have used biological weapons inevitably spreading to the third world.

>>565376

>Hiroshima sized firestorms

Hiroshima was a special case, being a city built almost entirely of extremely flammable materials. As far as I'm aware there are currently no major cities on the planet with the same firestorm potential as Hiroshima, including contemporary Hiroshima.

>>569036

It would not take longer than 40 years to get electronics back online. The knowledge is all there, and I seriously doubt that every single factory for making computer chips and whatnot would be neutralized by the EMP. It might take a little while to get back to prewar levels, and I'm sure some effects would be felt even decades later, but the idea that 40 years post-war we'd still be operating on a pre-WWII technological level is ridiculous. At worst, tech would be a bit less evenly distributed than it is now.

>>569669

Nunclear war would indeed be the most destructive event in human history. Literally hundreds of millions of people, maybe billions, would die.

People are just saying that, even given the extremely destructive reality of nuclear war, the effects have still been exaggerated. Nuclear war is often thought of as being a "95% of humanity dead" kind of thing, when really the death toll would probably be around 25%, in the event of a total nuclear war. Moreover, one of the main arguments for the apocalyptic nature of nuclear war - nuclear winter - is largely based on incorrect assumptions. Nuclear war would be literally the worst thing to ever happen to humanity, but it wouldn't get rid of all or even most of us.

>>565302
>that women on the background crying when you're in Defcon 1

this game is great.
I would love if someone made an even more fleshed out version of it

>>565327
>but life would go on
with huge doses of radioactive fallout spread all over the northern hemisphere

>we wouldn't be reduced to a pre industrial civilization
Yes, because powerplants, industrial areas and main urban areas wouldnt be bombed to shit at all in the case of nuclear war.

>>565218

Based on seeing this post, I found and started watching this movie.

Blissfully, right about the 48 minute mark, my phone rings. I didn't pause, and when I tried to roll back it locked up unmercifully.

That's the only time a telemarketer has ever saved me. I know the more gruesome scenes and things that would have certainly rustled me (Rule 0) from podcasts/reviews and will probably never watch the whole thing.

Makes me feel good about living in the immediate blast radius of at least one major target.

>>565349
>common sense

>>565229
Wrong.

>>565311
>anti-end-of-the-world propaganda is bad

>>565311

Why? Because it didn't happen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Remember when that huge volcano erupted and air traffic was stopped in northern Europe? Well, think about that multiplied by just 100. The earth's atmosphere would block out the sun and would get pretty friggin' cold.

Seriously study it a bit.

>>570821
Seconding the recommendation

>>565207
You'd be living in a Mad Max/Fist of the North Star world.

>>574550
and that's an excellent example of how far that thing went. even today most people think that it would've been a fucking apocalypse. sure, lot's of people would've died and many states collapse. but even in the worst days in 60's there just weren't enough and powerful enough nukes to turn the whole world into a radioactive wasteland that people think that post-nuclear world would look like. i personally would take a lifetime in small town after world-wide all-out nuclear war rather than a winter in 1942-43 stalingrad at any time.

Anonymous ## Mod 2016-01-19 18:46:04 Post No.577996
[Report]

Anonymous ## Mod 2016-01-19 18:46:04 Post No.577996 [Report]

This thread was moved to >>>/trash/1041288