Comments on: An awesome thought.

By: alcaray

alcaray — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 03:21:25 +0000

I think dealing with it realistically would be to declare it unacceptable and prevent it from happening. I think that’s what we’ve done. I’m proud of us.

By: TB

TB — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:15:55 +0000

If you want to go over these things in more detail, I recommend starting a new thread. Otherwise, there it is.

By: ER

ER — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:13:16 +0000

A very robust scenario for post-nuclear survival has already been outlined. Underground caves stocked with supplies, a 10-1 female to male ratio for the propagation of superior gene stocks, its all been thought out.

Nuclear wars don’t kill people. Its the collapse of civilization that kills people.
We must make certain people don’t develop an irrational fear of nuclear holocaust. They might simply refuse to participate in one.

By: TB

TB — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 22:37:21 +0000

Correction:

“Vast majority” is probably inaccurate, depending on the attack scenario (military vs. civilian targets). “Majority” is probably still accurate. Urban/Non-urban split of human population is about 50/50 now.

Most fallout is generated by ground bursts or “burrowing” warheads. Military targets. A civilian target like a city would usually be an air burst (like Hiroshima) which generates much less fallout. I live near what used to be a major military target (it’s not any more), so figured in an attack without warning I could kiss my ass goodbye. People who lived some distance outside the Bay Area, like the unsurpassed imbeciles in the movie “Testament,” could survive quite well.

By: TB

TB — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 22:28:38 +0000

Survivable in the sense that the vast majority of humanity would only have to deal with fallout and the social/economic disaster of a major atomic attack.

Not insignificant challenges, to be sure, but essentially if you are ten miles or more away from even a multi-megaton blast, and have the knowledge to deal with fallout, you could survive the effects of the bomb if you knew what you were doing. Other nations dealt with this realistically. We didn’t.

The technical details are probably too much for this thread but it wouldn’t suck for people to learn how to deal with radiation disasters anyway. Nuclear accidents or dirty bombs are still real dangers.

By: alcaray

alcaray — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 21:36:30 +0000

By survivable, you mean that not everyone on the planet would die?

By: TB

TB — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:43:15 +0000

The idea that nuclear attacks are unsurvivable was the propaganda.

Many nations during the Cold War had a robust civil defense program, including China and the Soviet Union, and even non-participants like Switzerland. We dismantled ours.

By: RobVG

RobVG — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 16:06:46 +0000

Promoting ignorance is not irrelevant. Neither is running a con. n/t

By: Jody

Jody — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:17:42 +0000

I adhere to that thought also Bowser. Everyone’s motives are beyond my ability to decipher. I am intuitive, so I have an idea…but truthfully is it my intuition, or is it to satisfy my need to comprehend that which is a peripheral in my reality?

By: bowser

bowser — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 23:16:48 +0000

In college we had to write a new ending to it.

Many times over the next few years I thought about that book. I wasn’t familiar with the poem. What struck me was that the folks who were most intrigued with the “bang”, the most war-like, toughest, most accepting of the deaths of others, most macho, biggest tattoos, the meanest, all went with a whimper if they had the time. All of ‘em I saw. And you couldn’t blame them, all the hopes, dreams, the sense of personal invulnerability literally shot to hell. Good reason to whimper, I think.

Thinking about something is one thing, knowing what one wanted to feel, but how we’ll react emotionally is reserved for the moment.

I just prayed to a God I knew could not exist for it to be fast so that I wouldn’t have to make that choice, and then tried to act as if it were dodge-ball.