After watching Threads, I started thinking about what the world would be like if the USSR and USA decided to go nuts and nuke each other? Let's say something like the Threads scenario happens in the 80s and there is a several thousand megaton exchange between the two great powers.
Do the USA, Europe and USSR get by far the brunt of it, leaving the then developing world several dozen times wealthier and more populace? Or are they almost as fucked by environmental damage and subsequent crop failure and mass extinction as everyone else? Does global population fall to early industrial levels, medieval levels, hunter-gatherer levels or do we eventually die out all together ? Do central governments fall apart into quarreling, bickering city states bent on controlling the last remaining resources on earth?
Also; Margaret Atwood brought talked a bit about this in Oryx and Crake; my first guess would be that almost no matter the detestation that some kind of civilization would return, but in that novel it is pointed out that almost all the world's easily accessible minerals have been mined and we need modern technology to get at things as basic as iron. Does this make a total return to modern standards of living (or at least a total technological revival) impossible?
Malthus?
Very interesting scenario.
Who The Fuck Are You, again?
Quote from: Siege on April 26, 2009, 02:14:08 PM
Very interesting scenario.
Who The Fuck Are You, again?
I think the original poster is Siegebreaker.
Things would be shitty if Cold War went nuclear.
Quote from: DGuller on April 26, 2009, 03:03:38 PM
Things would be shitty if Cold War went nuclear.
Source?
If the world collapsed, wouldn't there be an abundance of easily accessible minerals in the crap we've left behind?
Quote from: alfred russel on April 26, 2009, 03:08:09 PM
If the world collapsed, wouldn't there be an abundance of easily accessible minerals in the crap we've left behind?
No it magically disappears.
I saw a documentary on this once. We'd all mutate into Japanese.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.japanforum.com%2Fgallery%2Fdata%2F2%2Fmedium%2Fharajuku-fashion-01-20-07-017.jpg&hash=7fda76ee211213841fc7c4246a788b16be616098)
Quote from: Queequeg on April 26, 2009, 02:07:56 PM
After watching Threads, I started thinking
Well see, there ya go.
Argentina uber alles.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 26, 2009, 03:08:09 PM
If the world collapsed, wouldn't there be an abundance of easily accessible minerals in the crap we've left behind?
Huge amounts of materials in the most important areas in the world would would be destroyed, along with presumably a lot of the most educated, important people in the world. There could be a junk economy for along time, but it might not ever reach the point were it was capable of restarting the mining industry, especially as a lot of those areas would be the most thoroughly nuked precisely because of their extreme importance.
The first generation would presumably be able to salvage from broken items to fix less-broken ones, but eventually there would need to be more raw materials available, especially as population levels stabilize and eventually start growing again.
Probably the best case scenario would be something along the lines of Dr. Strangelove/Fallout; VIPs selected to live in strategic areas in half-converted mineshafts until the worst of the environmental effects are over, and then come out and use the rest of the surviving population for manual labor.
We have a mineshaft gap.
As Kleves said, we would all be Japanese.
Not a fun perspective.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 26, 2009, 07:34:19 PM
As Kleves said, we would all be Japanese.
Not a fun perspective.
Watashi wa shiroi desu.
Are all japanese chicks that ugly?
Quote from: Siege on April 26, 2009, 08:48:18 PM
Are all japanese chicks that ugly?
I think and hope that only the one on the left is a girl.
Quote from: Siege on April 26, 2009, 08:48:18 PM
Are all japanese chicks that ugly?
I think that is a bad sampling. And I'm not convinced that there are any chicks in that picture.
Why must it always be the 1980's? It seems like when ever anyone wants to have a cold war hot scenario it's in the 1980's. I mean the cold war covered 4 decades.
:blink: Indeed.
It seems to me that the period just prior to SALT is where it could most easily go nuclear, right around the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia: Johnson's approval rating is plummeting and the Tet Offensive has had catastrophic results. Democratic leaders urge President Johnson to shift focus away from Vietnam so that the party can run damage control and regain the election.
Units that would otherwise be devoted to Cambodian missions, particularly the 1st Air Cavalry Division, are set to withdraw, around May of 1968.
In August, misconstruing the USSR's statement about occupation of Czechoslovakia for an attempt to bolster force against the harried US, the withdrawing units are ordered redirected to Czechoslovakia to rout Warsaw Pact tank units and harry Soviet ground forces. At this point, the brand-spanking-new Brezhnev misconstrues the US action as an attempt to destabilize the USSR and orders the button pressed.
The funny thing about post-nuclear scenarios, is that everybody assumes they are going to be survivors.
Quote from: Siege on April 26, 2009, 11:45:23 PM
The funny thing about post-nuclear scenarios, is that everybody assumes they are going to be survivors.
The funny thing is there would be, even among the participants in the nuclear scenario- there were survivors at Chernobyl.
Chernobyl wasn't a nuke, and definitively wasn't a broadside exchange with a foreign superpower that would certainly use more than one nuke.
Quote from: Siege on April 26, 2009, 11:51:57 PM
Chernobyl wasn't a nuke, and definitively wasn't a broadside exchange with a foreign superpower that would certainly use more than one nuke.
Even in most midnight scenarios, the continental US was not blanketed with nukes; major population centers and nuclear reactors were considered the high-risk targets, so the decimation would be concentrated on the coasts, the Illinois/Michigan area, and the area surrounding NORAD.
Quote from: Siege on April 26, 2009, 11:45:23 PM
The funny thing about post-nuclear scenarios, is that everybody assumes they are going to be survivors.
What is strange is the belief that states most states wouldn't survive it. Or that the war would be over in a few hours.
Well, in Germany I had a big bulls eye painted onto my back thanks to the base/nuke storage in my town. And The WP planned 2 500kt nukes for Vienna in preparation of ground operations during the 60s/70s, so that reduces chances of survival, too.
Tactical nuclear weapon: Any nuclear weapon that happens to fall on Germany.
Quote from: Siege on April 26, 2009, 11:45:23 PM
The funny thing about post-nuclear scenarios, is that everybody assumes they are going to be survivors.
I grew up in the 1980s. I remember as a child hearing a jet going overhead and wondering, for a split second, if it was a soviet missle heading to kill me.
Do you think it's a coincidence I'm living in the subarctic, in the least likely area I can imagine to be nuked and still work as a federal prosecutor as I can imagine?
Remember EMPs too. A nuclear war would mean more or less all of our modern hardware would be totally fried even in the deepest corner of the woods. Welcome to the Middle Age, lucky 1% that survives chaos, cold and starvation during the first year of 'peace'!
IIRC when GDW was designing Twilight 2000 and 2300 AD, the first drafts conceived an outcome in which the new superpowers were Argentina, Brasil, Nigeria, South Africa and Australia... then sale interests prevailed and the result veered towards a highly improbable evolution along neovictorian lines!
But we have never experienced a true nuclear war, and is futile especulating on the physical results (for starters, there are several alternatives... a major first strike trying to annihilate enemy ICBMs, a conventional war that goes nuclear, a limited nuclear exchange during a mainly conventional war, etc). I' more interested in other results: for example, the 30 Years Wars ushered a radical change in the way religion was understood and practiced in Europe and at least contributed to the Age of Reason; and one needs only to consider how naïve the happy, singing crowds of 1914 seem to us to understand how deep are the changes the 'Great War' caused. One would expect nuclear Armageddon to have an impact even more radical...
Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2009, 01:06:37 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 26, 2009, 11:45:23 PM
The funny thing about post-nuclear scenarios, is that everybody assumes they are going to be survivors.
I grew up in the 1980s. I remember as a child hearing a jet going overhead and wondering, for a split second, if it was a soviet missle heading to kill me.
Do you think it's a coincidence I'm living in the subarctic, in the least likely area I can imagine to be nuked and still work as a federal prosecutor as I can imagine?
Early missile defense consisted of exploding nuclear bombs over Canada to destroy incoming warheads.
well, nuclear war in the early 80 would mean no survival for me seeing as my parents were stationed in Germany at the time. (radar and AA)
Oh well, shit happens
I probably wouldn't have been incinerated in a nuclear war in the 80s, my town wasn't important and far enough away from the blast zones. I most likely would have been eaten by the mutant cannibal hordes as they shuffled out of the radioactive wastelands in search of flesh.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2009, 10:20:06 PM
Why must it always be the 1980's? It seems like when ever anyone wants to have a cold war hot scenario it's in the 1980's. I mean the cold war covered 4 decades.
It was popular to assume that the election of Reagan meant that there would be a nuclear war. It just kind of stuck with us, I suppose.
Quote from: Siege on April 26, 2009, 11:45:23 PM
The funny thing about post-nuclear scenarios, is that everybody assumes they are going to be survivors.
And?
1: Its more interesting
2: Planning for what will happen if you do die is a bit redundant. You should assume you'll survive- if you're wrong then meh, no loss.
If the Cold War went nuclear, I would be blasted 1,000 years into the future by a direct bomb strike and would be captured by black slavers from Africa (who by then dominated the planet due to the near-total destruction of the northern hemisphere) and eventually escape to found my own libertarian utopia. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 27, 2009, 08:08:09 AM
If the Cold War went nuclear, I would be blasted 1,000 years into the future by a direct bomb strike and would be captured by black slavers from Africa (who by then dominated the planet due to the near-total destruction of the northern hemisphere) and eventually escape to found my own libertarian utopia. :)
Bastard. That book blew.
I really enjoyed it, and I'm the first to admit that Heinlein's body of work was uneven AT BEST. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on April 27, 2009, 12:47:05 PM
I really enjoyed it, and I'm the first to admit that Heinlein's body of work was uneven AT BEST. :mad:
Robert Heinlein had Isaac Asimov Syndrome- for every well-known good book, there were at least two to three mediocre/awful ones that thankfully faded into obscurity.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 27, 2009, 01:26:18 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 27, 2009, 12:47:05 PM
I really enjoyed it, and I'm the first to admit that Heinlein's body of work was uneven AT BEST. :mad:
Robert Heinlein had Isaac Asimov Syndrome- for every well-known good book, there were at least two to three mediocre/awful ones that thankfully faded into obscurity.
Asimov was fine on average. A lot of his books were bland time killers, which doesn't make them bad. Heinlein just got a little too preachy. I think he is required reading by alot of the Baen Publishing stable.
I think in terms of his writing, Asimov was far more reliable. Where Heinlein was great, he was brilliant. Where he failed, he failed far more spectacularly. I can't think of any Asimov works that I felt were complete trainwrecks, but in Heinlein's case I can immediately think of The Cat Who Walks Through Walls. :bleeding:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2009, 10:20:06 PM
Why must it always be the 1980's? It seems like when ever anyone wants to have a cold war hot scenario it's in the 1980's. I mean the cold war covered 4 decades.
Because a war in 1961 would destroy the Soviet Union but leave behind a United States that was "relatively" in tact. People want a full on apocalypse and the 80s is best for that.
Quote from: Caliga on April 27, 2009, 01:44:36 PMin Heinlein's case I can immediately think of The Cat Who Walks Through Walls. :bleeding:
Not
To Sail Beyond The Sunset? :bleeding:
Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2009, 01:06:37 AM
Do you think it's a coincidence I'm living in the subarctic, in the least likely area I can imagine to be nuked and still work as a federal prosecutor?
I figured there had to be some explanation.
Quote from: ulmont on April 27, 2009, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 27, 2009, 01:44:36 PMin Heinlein's case I can immediately think of The Cat Who Walks Through Walls. :bleeding:
Not To Sail Beyond The Sunset? :bleeding:
Sorry, I've not read it. ^_^
Quote from: Caliga on April 27, 2009, 02:58:09 PM
Quote from: ulmont on April 27, 2009, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 27, 2009, 01:44:36 PMin Heinlein's case I can immediately think of The Cat Who Walks Through Walls. :bleeding:
Not To Sail Beyond The Sunset? :bleeding:
Sorry, I've not read it. ^_^
I'll spoil it for you: Lazarus Long goes back in time and fucks his mom.
Ah, sounds like classic Heinlein. :cool:
If the cold war went nukular it would no longer be a cold war. :smarty:
Quote from: Caliga on April 27, 2009, 05:36:28 PM
Ah, sounds like classic Heinlein. :cool:
Really? Sounds like Niven to me. See:
Destiny's Road. "No birdfucking allowed! It's the law!" I couldn't make that up if I tried. :bleeding:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 27, 2009, 08:44:20 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 27, 2009, 05:36:28 PM
Ah, sounds like classic Heinlein. :cool:
Really? Sounds like Niven to me. See: Destiny's Road. "No birdfucking allowed! It's the law!" I couldn't make that up if I tried. :bleeding:
Niven's definitely one of those 60s-70s authors whose work is steeped in eroticism.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 27, 2009, 01:40:16 PMAsimov was fine on average. A lot of his books were bland time killers, which doesn't make them bad. Heinlein just got a little too preachy. I think he is required reading by alot of the Baen Publishing stable.
What do you mean 'a little'? He got so preachy that the utter lack of subtlety is almost funny... That was already very much in evidence by 1959 (Starship Troopers) and only became stronger with time.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 27, 2009, 01:51:44 AM
I probably wouldn't have been incinerated in a nuclear war in the 80s, my town wasn't important and far enough away from the blast zones. I most likely would have been eaten by the mutant cannibal hordes as they shuffled out of the radioactive wastelands in search of flesh.
I don't know if I would have been nuclearly blown to pieces back in the 80's.
Is it Haifa close enough to Tel Aviv, or a target important enough in his own right, to deserve a russian nuke?
I don't think that even a thermonuclear "city-buster" would have reached all the way to Haifa, if Tel Aviv was the only target in Israel.
People tend to overstimate the effect of nukes.
In the 80s, I lived like 20 km from the GDR border. I guess the cities I lived in would either have been nuked or conquered within the first hours of ground war.
Quote from: Siege on April 28, 2009, 09:54:41 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 27, 2009, 01:51:44 AM
I probably wouldn't have been incinerated in a nuclear war in the 80s, my town wasn't important and far enough away from the blast zones. I most likely would have been eaten by the mutant cannibal hordes as they shuffled out of the radioactive wastelands in search of flesh.
I don't know if I would have been nuclearly blown to pieces back in the 80's.
Is it Haifa close enough to Tel Aviv, or a target important enough in his own right, to deserve a russian nuke?
I don't think that even a thermonuclear "city-buster" would have reached all the way to Haifa, if Tel Aviv was the only target in Israel.
People tend to overstimate the effect of nukes.
Since your country was not part of Nato there was no reason to attack it.
NATO sucks ass.
Quote from: Siege on May 02, 2009, 10:51:39 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 02, 2009, 10:50:16 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 02, 2009, 10:45:22 PM
NATO sucks ass.
:huh:
Odd opinion.
You are odd.
And you're drunk as a Russian dockworker. I thought it was odd because, as a soldier, you have to, you know, fight with/for NATO, and the alliance helped save our ass in the Cold War.
The RAND Corp. used to publish maps of blast zones and expected yields for various targets and the likelyhood of them being hit. You could probably find them if you are curious about whether or not you'd have been vaporized. If oudn one in a library book sale a year or so ago. Boston would have been destroyed I'm sure, I'd have likely survived the initial exchange, but its anyone's guess about the ffallout and CHUDs.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 02, 2009, 10:57:53 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 02, 2009, 10:51:39 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 02, 2009, 10:50:16 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 02, 2009, 10:45:22 PM
NATO sucks ass.
:huh:
Odd opinion.
You are odd.
And you're drunk as a Russian dockworker. I thought it was odd because, as a soldier, you have to, you know, fight with/for NATO, and the alliance helped save our ass in the Cold War.
You are a dockworker.
You are a russian.
Leave it to the Israeli to say what the rest of us are thinking. Queequeq really is an incurable Russian.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2009, 02:16:03 PMQueequeq really is an incurable Russian.
Are there Russians that can be cured?
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 03, 2009, 02:40:40 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2009, 02:16:03 PMQueequeq really is an incurable Russian.
Are there Russians that can be cured?
They can leave and perhaps integrate themselves into another nation. A less awful one like Tanu Tava or North Korea.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 03, 2009, 02:40:40 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2009, 02:16:03 PMQueequeq really is an incurable Russian.
Are there Russians that can be cured?
The cure is taken through the skull.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2009, 09:39:23 PM
They have to suck off Marty?
What gave you the impression that Marty knew anything about being gay, let alone skull fucking?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2009, 09:01:49 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 03, 2009, 02:40:40 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2009, 02:16:03 PMQueequeq really is an incurable Russian.
Are there Russians that can be cured?
They can leave and perhaps integrate themselves into another nation. A less awful one like Tanu Tava or North Korea.
Some can be integrated into the US, just look at AmScip. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2009, 09:49:12 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2009, 09:39:23 PM
They have to suck off Marty?
What gave you the impression that Marty knew anything about being gay, let alone skull fucking?
Being gay is kinda his thing. I just assumed he would like Russians swallowing for the Pole instead of vice versa.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2009, 09:52:26 PM
Being gay is kinda his thing.
:yeahright:
Unless you mean the pretense of being gay. What do you call someone who tries too hard?
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2009, 09:57:12 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2009, 09:52:26 PM
Being gay is kinda his thing.
:yeahright:
Unless you mean the pretense of being gay. What do you call someone who tries too hard?
When they try hard enough that they are having sex with other men, I call them gay. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on May 03, 2009, 10:08:20 PM
When they try hard enough that they are having sex with other men, I call them gay. :P
Being homosexual doesn't necessarily mean being gay. Gay identity is largely a modern, Western concept. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2009, 10:16:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 03, 2009, 10:08:20 PM
When they try hard enough that they are having sex with other men, I call them gay. :P
Being homosexual doesn't necessarily mean being gay. Gay identity is largely a modern, Western concept. :contract:
I'm not understanding how Martinus fits into this.
I'd be in trouble.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webpal.org%2Fd_resources%2Fstates%2Fri.jpg&hash=44f2780b608852cdf232cc9da102cb47c5f736c0)
Quote from: alfred russel on May 03, 2009, 10:22:30 PM
I'm not understanding how Martinus fits into this.
Not Western. :contract:
Besides, playing with feet doesn't really count as sex.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2009, 10:24:33 PM
I'd be in trouble.
Your map doesn't take into account hits from across the borders. RI would be blanketed.
Quote from: Neil on May 04, 2009, 06:25:41 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2009, 10:24:33 PM
I'd be in trouble.
Your map doesn't take into account hits from across the borders. RI would be blanketed.
Yeah, Atteleboro would have been a target because of the Texas Instruments plant there.
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2009, 10:16:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 03, 2009, 10:08:20 PM
When they try hard enough that they are having sex with other men, I call them gay. :P
Being homosexual doesn't necessarily mean being gay. Gay identity is largely a modern, Western concept. :contract:
Whoa, I never thought of it that way.
You might be unto something here.