..bet there's at least one person desperately trying to apologise to their boss and claim that of course they don't hate working here and of course they don't really think that about them.
Iron_Captain wrote: Such incompetence Well, at least I guess this leads to the system being improved, so you kinda could say it was a really successful test...
The system worked... Well too well. The test was a real test.
I wonder what changes are going to be made to prevent how this mistake happens again. It's easy to blame people, but what was the system in place that allowed the false alarm to go out?
Not really, since the alarm was false and caused undo anxiety and possible injury to the people it was designed to protect. I imagine a point by point check is now going on to see if standards were followed and what can be done at each decision point to see what can be done to insure against such occurances in the future.
Not really, since the alarm was false and caused undo anxiety and possible injury to the people it was designed to protect. I imagine a point by point check is now going on to see if standards were followed and what can be done at each decision point to see what can be done to insure against such occurances in the future.
It did though.
Yes it was false but thr broadcast systems got thr message out. The alarms and sirens sounded if needed. The messages got to the people of the islands via thr various methods. E
Not a good test. But it showed the system can deliver a emergency message.
Relapse wrote: The broadcast part worked, I will give you that, but the initial alert and verification failed
It's a symptom of a much older problem to be honest. The problem of "you don't know what have until it's gone".
During the early days of the Cold War, the United States had a well developed Civil Defense system in place. But after the late 1960's, anti-nuclear scientists had everyone convinced that if the balloon went up, and the birds flew, we were all gonna die. Nuclear War, they said, wasn't survivable. School drills for nuclear attack were done away with. CD equipment, like gieger counters, became novelties. People started ignoring tests of air raid sirens (and eventually, the alert systems fell into disuse or were repurposed), fallout shelters fell into disrepair, CD stockpiles went out of date and were never rotated, evacuation plans in the event of an attack were never updated, and defense installations around major cities were dismantled. Those that still took preparation seriously were labeled as "kooks", and the concocted "survivalist" label became a dirty word. Civil Defense was pushed off on local governments, with Federal support eventually drying up. Eventually CD was renamed in most jurisdictions and propped up by meager State funding.
All of this prior to the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. and reduction of the threat of all out nuclear war.
However, the U.S.S.R. never let their civil defense efforts lapse until the Soviet economy started tanking just prior to the fall of the Communist Bloc. It can be argued that the end of the Cold War made everybody even more complacent. People believed that the threat of nuclear war was gone forever, instead of simply being greatly reduced. The Superpowers may have started standing down from Cold War strategic readiness, but others were eager to take their place.
In the years since that time we've seen China's missile technology improve greatly and their ambitions to become the next global hegemon grow. We've also seen Israel confirmed to have been a nuclear power since the early 1970's (if not before), with modern missile delivery systems becoming operational since then. Pakistan, a known harbourer of international terrorists, has gone nuclear. There are Middle Eastern powers with nuclear ambitions and the technology to pull it off. Then there is Krazy Kim and his new "toys" inherited from his late Daddy Dearest.
While Russia has returned to the status of a major player, as one of the two main "combatants" of the Cold War, they wouldn't be eager to use nuclear weapons, even on a limited scale, unless really pushed. But the rest may not be so restrained if they think it will be advantageous. Pakistan's mostly secular dictatorship could fall and be replaced by an Islamic government. North Korea is a wild card. Those are just a couple of examples.
Even with the Islamic terror attacks on the United States, 9/11 being the biggest and most destructive, there are plenty people are still living in la-la land, with their heads in the sand like the proverbial Ostrich. Sure, civilizational ending nuclear conflicts are not the biggest threat right now like it was during the Cold War (that will likely change in the future). But the threat of a limited nuclear exchange, either regionally or globally, is very real. The authorities and citizenry in the United States need to get on the same wavelength when it comes to readiness, especially in high threat areas. This little misadventure in Hawaii is a wake up call to improve our civil defense readiness, improve the system, and include the general public in these plans. We need to make the effort to do so, or the public and political establishment will sour on any kind of civil defense readiness, and that's when something terrible will happen, and we won't be ready.
If there are limited nukes launched the solution is to evacuate completely. If all-out war happens then yeah, we're all gunna die. You have shelters? So what? Whatever supplies you have aren't going to outlast the radiation, and whatever sanity people have is unlikely to even last long enough to deplete the supplies. Ever consider that dying in the nuclear apocalypse is quite possibly the better option?
And I like how you say that the Soviet Union continued spending right up until the their economy collapsed, gee, some might say those two things were related.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If there are limited nukes launched the solution is to evacuate completely. If all-out war happens then yeah, we're all gunna die. You have shelters? So what? Whatever supplies you have aren't going to outlast the radiation, and whatever sanity people have is unlikely to even last long enough to deplete the supplies.
Not quite true. You're forgetting that quite a few areas will be unscathed by any theoretical nuclear apocalypse, and even areas which do get hit will see a lot of people escape to non-radioactive areas.
Mass death and panic? Of course. Total annhilation? Not even close.
Speaking to shelters specifically, a good way to treat a shelter is as a temporary solution for a few weeks/months after a detonation. Then, after the initial radiation has subsided, you put on hazmat suits and book it for safety. You don't stay in the bunker for years and years. And unless the nuke exploded literally on top of the bunker you'll be fine*.
*fine being relative. You'll still suffer some radiation exposure and likely develop some cancer down the road, but it beats dying immediately.
Really, shelters should be designed to be quickly entered and contain supplies for a short period of them and also radiation suits and some form of transportation for anybody inside to leave the area quickly after the bombs have all detonated. We're not going to make Vaults and live like people from Fallout.
Nukes will only hit densely populated urban areas. Rural areas will likely be ignored completely, and nobody has enough nukes to waste on ensuring that everywhere gets irradiated to kill off the civilians fleeing into the wilderness.
Grey Templar wrote: and nobody has enough nukes to waste on ensuring that everywhere gets irradiated to kill off the civilians fleeing into the wilderness.
Both, russia and the US have enough nukes to do just that.
Grey Templar wrote: and nobody has enough nukes to waste on ensuring that everywhere gets irradiated to kill off the civilians fleeing into the wilderness.
Both, russia and the US have enough nukes to do just that.
Yeah. Combine all weaponry they can about strip all life from thr planet quite well. Least kill some 99% of all people maybe.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If there are limited nukes launched the solution is to evacuate completely. If all-out war happens then yeah, we're all gunna die. You have shelters? So what? Whatever supplies you have aren't going to outlast the radiation, and whatever sanity people have is unlikely to even last long enough to deplete the supplies.
Not quite true. You're forgetting that quite a few areas will be unscathed by any theoretical nuclear apocalypse, and even areas which do get hit will see a lot of people escape to non-radioactive areas.
Mass death and panic? Of course. Total annhilation? Not even close.
Speaking to shelters specifically, a good way to treat a shelter is as a temporary solution for a few weeks/months after a detonation. Then, after the initial radiation has subsided, you put on hazmat suits and book it for safety. You don't stay in the bunker for years and years. And unless the nuke exploded literally on top of the bunker you'll be fine*.
*fine being relative. You'll still suffer some radiation exposure and likely develop some cancer down the road, but it beats dying immediately.
Really, shelters should be designed to be quickly entered and contain supplies for a short period of them and also radiation suits and some form of transportation for anybody inside to leave the area quickly after the bombs have all detonated. We're not going to make Vaults and live like people from Fallout.
Nukes will only hit densely populated urban areas. Rural areas will likely be ignored completely, and nobody has enough nukes to waste on ensuring that everywhere gets irradiated to kill off the civilians fleeing into the wilderness.
That's part of the point though, a dedicated emergency response infrastructure would better serve the people than spending a ton of money to build and maintain bunkers that may never get used. The only instance in which bunkers like that are the best solution is if there is nowhere to evacuate to.
I love the stupid myth of "Well I'll just flee to the countryside and live like a wild man!" when it comes to talking about nuclear war. Yeah, you and every knuckledragger think that.
The truth is if the blasts don't get you, the blackrain and fallout will, or every other mouthbreather desperate for food and clean water cause the forests can't support that kind of exodus. Especially with people who dont understand wildlife needs time to repopulate.
It's an ignorant thought that goes hand in hand with the stupid belief that "I'm badass enough to be Mad Max."
You won't be Max, you won't be Immortan Joe, you won't even be a warboy. You'll be scraped off someones boot cause you thought that water was safe or because you bled out after taking a panic shot.
lonestarr777 wrote: I love the stupid myth of "Well I'll just flee to the countryside and live like a wild man!" when it comes to talking about nuclear war. Yeah, you and every knuckledragger think that.
The truth is if the blasts don't get you, the blackrain and fallout will, or every other mouthbreather desperate for food and clean water cause the forests can't support that kind of exodus. Especially with people who dont understand wildlife needs time to repopulate.
It's an ignorant thought that goes hand in hand with the stupid belief that "I'm badass enough to be Mad Max."
You won't be Max, you won't be Immortan Joe, you won't even be a warboy. You'll be scraped off someones boot cause you thought that water was safe or because you bled out after taking a panic shot.
''Life finds a way''
Look, there are estimated to only be around 15k nuclear weapons in existence right now. Even if all of them were Tsar bombs, which they are not, they could not blanket the entire land surface of the earth with lethal(for humans) doses of radiation, much less immediately scour all life from it. And nobody is going to waste a multi-billion dollar weapon ensuring that a few hundred square kilometers in South Dakota/Siberia/middleofnowhere are irradiated.
I'll do some calculations later for this tonight.
Nukes are very bad, but the extent of a nuclear Apocalypse has been hideously oversold by fear mongerers.
Even your own whitty answer implies that somebody will survive to shoot other survivors. I don't dispute that panic and chaos will lead to infighting among the survivors. But people being alive to fight each other kinda prooves my point.
Yes, you are technically correct. Not every literally single person will die if a total nuclear exchange between major powers happens. But we will go back to the stone age. Life will be nasty, brutish and short.
lonestarr777 wrote: I love the stupid myth of "Well I'll just flee to the countryside and live like a wild man!" when it comes to talking about nuclear war. Yeah, you and every knuckledragger think that.
The truth is if the blasts don't get you, the blackrain and fallout will, or every other mouthbreather desperate for food and clean water cause the forests can't support that kind of exodus. Especially with people who dont understand wildlife needs time to repopulate.
It's an ignorant thought that goes hand in hand with the stupid belief that "I'm badass enough to be Mad Max."
You won't be Max, you won't be Immortan Joe, you won't even be a warboy. You'll be scraped off someones boot cause you thought that water was safe or because you bled out after taking a panic shot.
Well, uh, no one brought up that idea at all. Did a survivalist piss you off recently?
They don't need to totally blanket the earth with actual explosions to kill everybody, the radioactive dust blasted up into the atmosphere is what makes a full nuclear exchange an Extinction Level Event for humanity.
Fearmongering? Pff. Anyone who thinks they can survive the aftermath of total nuclear war is 100% certifiable grade-A nutso. Civilisation would end almost immediately, and anyone not killed in the blasts, by direct radiation exposure from the blasts, by fallout in the aftermath of the blasts, or by other "survivors" in the aftermath of the fallout would last until their stockpiled supplies ran out or they get a lethal dose from eating contaminated wildlife/drinking contaminated water depending on whether they're the Prepper or Mountain Man subset of kook.
And if we're talking about a limited exchange(highly unlikely given MAD; if anyone's ever stupid enough to actually kick things off the likelihood it wouldn't escalate to a total exchange is tiny) or a locally detonated device, all the "civil defence"/prepping stuff is just unnecessary - either you were in the target zone, in which case you're dead, or you weren't, in which case a well stocked pantry and some duct tape to seal up windows & doors if you're in the path of contaminated rain will be sufficient to see you through the immediate crisis.
There's no in-between "sweet spot" between it being a relatively localised problem and an ELE where all that camo hunting clothes and tins of spam and the HAM radio you have tucked away in some dank basement or decrepit cabin is going to be the difference between life & death.
From what studies there have been in the 21st century on the effects of full out nuclear exchange, they make surviving the exchange sound like the easiest part.
Its the problem of rapid climate shifts that might occur that would be the absolute deathblow. Agriculture is likely to be impossible for maybe as much as the immediate decade after the exchange. So even if the people with the knowledge survive they would likely starve to death because they can't grow food regardless. As for hunting, whatever is left of the animal population will suffer as much from the effects on the enviroment if not more. This would already decrease their reproduction, let alone being hunted into extinction by whoever survives and has to depend on the wildlife to survive for years. Plus like Yodhrin says, all the fallout has to be taken into account too, areas away from the initial blasts will quickly be blanketed in the aftermath as its spread by weather systems.
Sounds like a lot of people in this thread get all of their knowledge of nuclear weapons from post-apocalypse movies. A full-out nuclear war would lead to a massive death toll unseen before in any war, but it would hardly be the end of times. Radiation decays relatively quickly (rule of 7:10 anyone?) and there is no solid scientific evidence that a nuclear war would lead to "nuclear winter" or any climate shifts that serious. Works of fiction like Fallout are completely unrealistic in how they portray the long-term effects of nuclear radiation. The biggest threat of a nuclear war would be the disruption of food distribution system due to the destruction of cities and infrastructure. Historically, famine and plague have always been the biggest killers in war and other calamities, and for the survivors of a nuclear war, I doubt that would be any different. I think government should be doing more about storing food and medical supplies in case of emergency. Would be handy not just for the aftermath of a destructive (nuclear) war, but also in general with climate change becoming more disruptive. Food and medicine stockpiles could alleviate the worst disruptive effects so that populations have time to adapt.
There is a good chance that a lot of the problem from a nuclear war would probably be the massive amounts of radioactive dust floating around then getting into food supplies.
Potential air bursting nukes for that theoretical emp shutting down massive amounts of electrical systems. though its theoretical and we probably wont find out anytime soon.
if anything dont live in the main cities or near military bases. and dont breath in the dust unless you want thyroid cancer.
there was a sci show episode about the dust from nuke testing above ground in the mid west reaching all the way out east as rain causing like 1000 cases of cancer and screwing up a ton of xray film packets or something like that.
Iron_Captain wrote: Sounds like a lot of people in this thread get all of their knowledge of nuclear weapons from post-apocalypse movies.
A full-out nuclear war would lead to a massive death toll unseen before in any war, but it would hardly be the end of times. Radiation decays relatively quickly (rule of 7:10 anyone?) and there is no solid scientific evidence that a nuclear war would lead to "nuclear winter" or any climate shifts that serious. Works of fiction like Fallout are completely unrealistic in how they portray the long-term effects of nuclear radiation.
The biggest threat of a nuclear war would be the disruption of food distribution system due to the destruction of cities and infrastructure. Historically, famine and plague have always been the biggest killers in war and other calamities, and for the survivors of a nuclear war, I doubt that would be any different. I think government should be doing more about storing food and medical supplies in case of emergency. Would be handy not just for the aftermath of a destructive (nuclear) war, but also in general with climate change becoming more disruptive. Food and medicine stockpiles could alleviate the worst disruptive effects so that populations have time to adapt.
Now that is a good idea abd an effective preparation measure.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Well, uh, no one brought up that idea at all. Did a survivalist piss you off recently?
Actually, yes, yes one did. I know a fat chain smoking schmuck of a manchild who was dissapointed that the world didnt end. He thinks hes going to be some king because he owns a handful of guns and has convinced himself hes some hardass.
Greys downplaying the whole nuclear war just pushed me wrong and even now people are posting with essentially "Oh it would just be hell on earth, thats not so bad right?"
Iron_Captain wrote: Sounds like a lot of people in this thread get all of their knowledge of nuclear weapons from post-apocalypse movies.
A full-out nuclear war would lead to a massive death toll unseen before in any war, but it would hardly be the end of times. Radiation decays relatively quickly (rule of 7:10 anyone?) and there is no solid scientific evidence that a nuclear war would lead to "nuclear winter" or any climate shifts that serious. Works of fiction like Fallout are completely unrealistic in how they portray the long-term effects of nuclear radiation.
The biggest threat of a nuclear war would be the disruption of food distribution system due to the destruction of cities and infrastructure. Historically, famine and plague have always been the biggest killers in war and other calamities, and for the survivors of a nuclear war, I doubt that would be any different. I think government should be doing more about storing food and medical supplies in case of emergency. Would be handy not just for the aftermath of a destructive (nuclear) war, but also in general with climate change becoming more disruptive. Food and medicine stockpiles could alleviate the worst disruptive effects so that populations have time to adapt.
Radiation only decays quickly depending on the type of radiation and possible factors in the enviroment. Caesium-137 and Strontium-90 for example have half lifes of decades. This is the dangerous kind leaking into soil and drinking water, making everything produced or living there dangerous/unfit for human consumption. That alone could last decades.
While a nuclear winter has been debated as valid in the scientific community, there have been papers written on models that are much more advanced than the 1980's ones. The 21st century models show that it will have a significant effect on the climate. But the problem is that we won't know exactly what will happen. That's why a blank book is just as good as any other nuclear survival book, because beyond the immediate aftermath, nobody really knows what to do.
On storing food and medicine, that is a bad idea. Most governments could build or have stockpiles for several months. Yet the problem is that most of this will be totally useless. In the case of something catastropic most people would be dead and you stockpiled far too much. If it isn't absolutely society destroying then the Western world has no need to access it. Famine won't be a risk for the Western world because we can buy food, so if the situation becomes so severe that a Western country has a famine something has gone seriously wrong that a food stockpile will only delay suffering (as were talking months of supplies versus possibly years to get a solution). Climate change is a perfect example for the futility of stockpiles, because if you let it get that bad that starvation breaks out, where will the food for next year come from? Better to invest the money you put into a stockpile bandaid into a prevention method. Plus take into account that any attempt at stockpiling will put massive demand on the side of food supply, meaning that the act of stockpiling itself might lead to famine and starvation in poorer areas of the world. The same goes for medication of course. The countries that would really benefit from these kinds of stockpiles are the ones who can't afford it and would suffer the most if other countries start doing it.
The possibilites and ideas of preparing for the aftermath of a nuclear war, and what has been done in the past about it, is quite interesting.
I'm living in a city in northern Germany that was literally in firing distance from the East/West border during GDR times in the cold war. Our local university clinic has a vast network of catacombs below the actually used hospital levels for the purpose of having an emergency hospital, below the hospital, in case the hospital gets fragged to bits in a cold war getting hot. They had rows and rows of beds lined up, clean sheets and all under plastic covers, for years, never being used. Can't even imagine the stockpiles of medical equipment that must've been stored there before it was carried off after tensions ebbed down.
Nowadays it's completely populated by robots on rails installed to lug all the hospital logistics from A to B, with basically no humans around except the rare technician using a bicycle to traverse the tunnels. It's a very eerie place; a professor of mine loves telling the story of a patient accidentally joining a work crew into those catacombs looking for a place to smoke, not realizing that he can't call the elevator back up without a keycard. Apparently he tried to climb through a ventilation duct...and got stuck, right below one of the active clinical wards, close enough that he must've heard the movement and voices. The dry airflow in the duct mummified his starved corpse for years before somebody found him there.
Iron_Captain wrote: Sounds like a lot of people in this thread get all of their knowledge of nuclear weapons from post-apocalypse movies.
A full-out nuclear war would lead to a massive death toll unseen before in any war, but it would hardly be the end of times. Radiation decays relatively quickly (rule of 7:10 anyone?) and there is no solid scientific evidence that a nuclear war would lead to "nuclear winter" or any climate shifts that serious. Works of fiction like Fallout are completely unrealistic in how they portray the long-term effects of nuclear radiation.
The biggest threat of a nuclear war would be the disruption of food distribution system due to the destruction of cities and infrastructure. Historically, famine and plague have always been the biggest killers in war and other calamities, and for the survivors of a nuclear war, I doubt that would be any different. I think government should be doing more about storing food and medical supplies in case of emergency. Would be handy not just for the aftermath of a destructive (nuclear) war, but also in general with climate change becoming more disruptive. Food and medicine stockpiles could alleviate the worst disruptive effects so that populations have time to adapt.
Radiation only decays quickly depending on the type of radiation and possible factors in the enviroment. Caesium-137 and Strontium-90 for example have half lifes of decades. This is the dangerous kind leaking into soil and drinking water, making everything produced or living there dangerous/unfit for human consumption. That alone could last decades.
While a nuclear winter has been debated as valid in the scientific community, there have been papers written on models that are much more advanced than the 1980's ones. The 21st century models show that it will have a significant effect on the climate. But the problem is that we won't know exactly what will happen. That's why a blank book is just as good as any other nuclear survival book, because beyond the immediate aftermath, nobody really knows what to do.
On storing food and medicine, that is a bad idea. Most governments could build or have stockpiles for several months. Yet the problem is that most of this will be totally useless. In the case of something catastropic most people would be dead and you stockpiled far too much. If it isn't absolutely society destroying then the Western world has no need to access it. Famine won't be a risk for the Western world because we can buy food, so if the situation becomes so severe that a Western country has a famine something has gone seriously wrong that a food stockpile will only delay suffering (as were talking months of supplies versus possibly years to get a solution). Climate change is a perfect example for the futility of stockpiles, because if you let it get that bad that starvation breaks out, where will the food for next year come from? Better to invest the money you put into a stockpile bandaid into a prevention method. Plus take into account that any attempt at stockpiling will put massive demand on the side of food supply, meaning that the act of stockpiling itself might lead to famine and starvation in poorer areas of the world. The same goes for medication of course. The countries that would really benefit from these kinds of stockpiles are the ones who can't afford it and would suffer the most if other countries start doing it.
"buy food"? Did you forget the last war in Western Europe already? It is only a bit more than 70 years ago. There was famine then, even in rich countries like the Netherlands. War usually wrecks the economical structures that a country needs to buy food. Famine in war is pretty much an inevitability, even if you are rich.
And in a nuclear war, Caesium-137 and Strontium-90 are going to be the least of everyone's worries. Sure, a lot of people will get exposed to radiation leading to an increased risk of cancer, which will lead to their life expectancy being somewhat shortened. But their life expectancy will be much, much shorter if they don't get food and medicine. And even with heavy radiation exposure, you still can become pretty old. Plenty of survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have lived into their 80's and 90's despite having gotten relatively heavy doses of radiation. Radioactivity resulting from the detonation of a nuclear fission bomb decays by a factor of 10 every 7 hours, so even though some isotopes will stick around for a long time, radiation does rapidly decrease in lethality.
As to the research on nuclear winter, there is a lot of doubt regarding the reliability of the scientists writing those papers, since most of them seem to have very clear political motives. In many cases, it is the same people from the 1980's.
But you are very right in saying that no one knows exactly what will happen. So I guess we better be prepared for every possible scenario. And that is why I think stockpiles of food and medicine are so important. Humans are an extremely adaptable animal species, capable of living in conditions ranging from polar wastelands to scorching deserts and everything in between. So whatever conditions a full nuclear war would produce, we would be highly likely to survive. But adapting does take time, and the changes caused by a nuclear war might be very sudden. That is why we would need stockpiles to 'bridge the gap' and soften the impact, allowing as many people to survive as possible. Besides, stockpiles are just handy in any kind of calamity, not just the aftermath of a nuclear war. I am not sure whether developed countries stockpiling food would lead to more food shortages in the third world. World food production currently is more than enough to feed all people on the planet. The issue usually is not in the quantity of food, but rather with how food is distributed within third world countries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Witzkatz wrote: The possibilites and ideas of preparing for the aftermath of a nuclear war, and what has been done in the past about it, is quite interesting.
I'm living in a city in northern Germany that was literally in firing distance from the East/West border during GDR times in the cold war. Our local university clinic has a vast network of catacombs below the actually used hospital levels for the purpose of having an emergency hospital, below the hospital, in case the hospital gets fragged to bits in a cold war getting hot. They had rows and rows of beds lined up, clean sheets and all under plastic covers, for years, never being used. Can't even imagine the stockpiles of medical equipment that must've been stored there before it was carried off after tensions ebbed down.
Nowadays it's completely populated by robots on rails installed to lug all the hospital logistics from A to B, with basically no humans around except the rare technician using a bicycle to traverse the tunnels. It's a very eerie place; a professor of mine loves telling the story of a patient accidentally joining a work crew into those catacombs looking for a place to smoke, not realizing that he can't call the elevator back up without a keycard. Apparently he tried to climb through a ventilation duct...and got stuck, right below one of the active clinical wards, close enough that he must've heard the movement and voices. The dry airflow in the duct mummified his starved corpse for years before somebody found him there.
Yeah, it is. In Russia for example, a lot of cities have very deep metro networks that were designed as nuclear shelters as well as transport systems. A city like Moscow actually has an even deeper (and secret) metro network beneath the normal metro network for the government to retreat to. Reportedly, the network links all important government facilities in the city and also connects to locations outside the city such as Stalin's former dacha and even secret facilities deep under the Urals. According to some people, there is an entire underground city. It is really hard to distinguish fact from rumour though (probably because it is secret).
I have also heard that in Switzerland, every house is required to have a nuclear bunker and a stockpile of essential items. The Swiss army also has a ridiculous amount of bunkers and such in the mountains. Also, Switzerland has a huge stockpile of weapons and really high rates of weapon ownership. Funny how Europe's most peaceful country is crazy prepared for war .
Disciple of Fate wrote: Radiation only decays quickly depending on the type of radiation and possible factors in the enviroment. Caesium-137 and Strontium-90 for example have half lifes of decades. This is the dangerous kind leaking into soil and drinking water, making everything produced or living there dangerous/unfit for human consumption. That alone could last decades.
While a nuclear winter has been debated as valid in the scientific community, there have been papers written on models that are much more advanced than the 1980's ones. The 21st century models show that it will have a significant effect on the climate. But the problem is that we won't know exactly what will happen. That's why a blank book is just as good as any other nuclear survival book, because beyond the immediate aftermath, nobody really knows what to do.
On storing food and medicine, that is a bad idea. Most governments could build or have stockpiles for several months. Yet the problem is that most of this will be totally useless. In the case of something catastropic most people would be dead and you stockpiled far too much. If it isn't absolutely society destroying then the Western world has no need to access it. Famine won't be a risk for the Western world because we can buy food, so if the situation becomes so severe that a Western country has a famine something has gone seriously wrong that a food stockpile will only delay suffering (as were talking months of supplies versus possibly years to get a solution). Climate change is a perfect example for the futility of stockpiles, because if you let it get that bad that starvation breaks out, where will the food for next year come from? Better to invest the money you put into a stockpile bandaid into a prevention method. Plus take into account that any attempt at stockpiling will put massive demand on the side of food supply, meaning that the act of stockpiling itself might lead to famine and starvation in poorer areas of the world. The same goes for medication of course. The countries that would really benefit from these kinds of stockpiles are the ones who can't afford it and would suffer the most if other countries start doing it.
"buy food"? Did you forget the last war in Western Europe already? It is only a bit more than 70 years ago. There was famine then, even in rich countries like the Netherlands. War usually wrecks the economical structures that a country needs to buy food. Famine in war is pretty much an inevitability, even if you are rich.
And in a nuclear war, Caesium-137 and Strontium-90 are going to be the least of everyone's worries. Sure, a lot of people will get exposed to radiation leading to an increased risk of cancer, which will lead to their life expectancy being somewhat shortened. But their life expectancy will be much, much shorter if they don't get food and medicine. And even with heavy radiation exposure, you still can become pretty old. Plenty of survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have lived into their 80's and 90's despite having gotten relatively heavy doses of radiation. Radioactivity resulting from the detonation of a nuclear fission bomb decays by a factor of 10 every 7 hours, so even though some isotopes will stick around for a long time, radiation does rapidly decrease in lethality.
As to the research on nuclear winter, there is a lot of doubt regarding the reliability of the scientists writing those papers, since most of them seem to have very clear political motives. In many cases, it is the same people from the 1980's.
But you are very right in saying that no one knows exactly what will happen. So I guess we better be prepared for every possible scenario. And that is why I think stockpiles of food and medicine are so important. Humans are an extremely adaptable animal species, capable of living in conditions ranging from polar wastelands to scorching deserts and everything in between. So whatever conditions a full nuclear war would produce, we would be highly likely to survive. But adapting does take time, and the changes caused by a nuclear war might be very sudden. That is why we would need stockpiles to 'bridge the gap' and soften the impact, allowing as many people to survive as possible. Besides, stockpiles are just handy in any kind of calamity, not just the aftermath of a nuclear war. I am not sure whether developed countries stockpiling food would lead to more food shortages in the third world. World food production currently is more than enough to feed all people on the planet. The issue usually is not in the quantity of food, but rather with how food is distributed within third world countries.
WW2 is both the worst and the best example to prove/disprove the stockpile viability idea. Worst because a war lasting 5 years on a European scale like WW2 is incredibly unlikely now that so many major players have nuclear weapons, the time scale being completely unrealistic. The best because exactly, there was famine, in the 5th year of the war, no stockpile is going to last years. Look at the strategic oil stockpiles of the US for example, they represent just 5 months of imports. Most wars are neither as intensive or as long lasting as WW2 and when we talk about modern militaries (i.e. of rich countries who could afford to actually stockpile) fighting in a equipment capacity will be decided upon in weeks at best. Then you have to take into account that if it actually comes to an invasion your stockpiles are either going to be overrun or destroyed. What good would have food stockpiles had done in WW2 when the Nazi's could and did just take every scrap of food available in places? Like I said, places such as countries in Africa that really need food stockpiles are just to poor to afford them. The West really has no need for them as any war that would lead to actual famine is either going to end up in a nuclear exchange or surrender, as its become incredibly one sided for famine to take hold.
Yeah but you brought up radiation longevity which is why i mentioned them. Realistically there is no way to provide food for or long term medical supplies for after a global nuclear war. What few people would have survived are now left with an enormousness stock of excess food and medication with a shelf life that won't be that long. So best case scenario is that you feed some survivors while having spend billions if not trillions on supplies that are just going to decay away because 99% of the intended recipients are dead. That is if those stockpiles don't get hit first as tertiary targets. The problem of stockpiling is that you're doing it for a time when society has absolutely collapsed, with possibly no government infrastructure available anymore to get those surviving stockpiles anywhere they are needed. You would need an immense infrastructure just to ensure stockpiles can be accessible on food, an immense infrastructure that will easily collapse with the rest of society. So why not spend those billions or trillions on actual projects that are beneficial in the here and the now, instead of a possible future in which almost everyone is dead anyway. Its just a waste of money.
Also taking Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors into accounts is a bit misleading, because it was such a localized and isolated event. In the case of a global event almost everything the survivors will come into contact with will be contaminated, even the soil itself will be contaminated. So besides there being few survivors, now you're dealing with background radiation and genetic defects as a result that will likely have far reaching consequences on the overall future of the human race (miscarriage being the major one due to exposure). Plus that is taking into account that whoever survives will even have the capabilities to keep themselves alive for long enough to even start another generation.
Not always still connected to the 1980's, plus there are those connected to US government agencies. As for the political motivations, its kind of a two way street on that. Regardless, there have been large scale natural events in recorded history that have had significant if short term impact on (localized) climate. Who knows what a few thousand nuclear warheads are going to do to it. But nuclear winter whether real or not isn't going to be the worst problem.
I'm just of the opinion that stockpiling food is an incredible waste as A, you don't know how many people will survive so what is enough? and B, any stockpile that might survive a nuclear exchange might be horribly misplaced to actually help and C, this is wasting billions on a potential future 99% of the people paying for it will likely never see.
As for food shortages and enough production. Yeah, the argument that there is enough production in the world always gets brought up, yet there are still famines. What do you think is going to happen to food prices if suddenly the US, Europe, China and others are going to line up to buy months worth of food for billions of people? Its going to exacerbate food security problems in places such as Africa no doubt about it.
Witzkatz wrote: The possibilites and ideas of preparing for the aftermath of a nuclear war, and what has been done in the past about it, is quite interesting.
I'm living in a city in northern Germany that was literally in firing distance from the East/West border during GDR times in the cold war. Our local university clinic has a vast network of catacombs below the actually used hospital levels for the purpose of having an emergency hospital, below the hospital, in case the hospital gets fragged to bits in a cold war getting hot. They had rows and rows of beds lined up, clean sheets and all under plastic covers, for years, never being used. Can't even imagine the stockpiles of medical equipment that must've been stored there before it was carried off after tensions ebbed down.
Nowadays it's completely populated by robots on rails installed to lug all the hospital logistics from A to B, with basically no humans around except the rare technician using a bicycle to traverse the tunnels. It's a very eerie place; a professor of mine loves telling the story of a patient accidentally joining a work crew into those catacombs looking for a place to smoke, not realizing that he can't call the elevator back up without a keycard. Apparently he tried to climb through a ventilation duct...and got stuck, right below one of the active clinical wards, close enough that he must've heard the movement and voices. The dry airflow in the duct mummified his starved corpse for years before somebody found him there.
Yeah, it is. In Russia for example, a lot of cities have very deep metro networks that were designed as nuclear shelters as well as transport systems. A city like Moscow actually has an even deeper (and secret) metro network beneath the normal metro network for the government to retreat to. Reportedly, the network links all important government facilities in the city and also connects to locations outside the city such as Stalin's former dacha and even secret facilities deep under the Urals. According to some people, there is an entire underground city. It is really hard to distinguish fact from rumour though (probably because it is secret).
I have also heard that in Switzerland, every house is required to have a nuclear bunker and a stockpile of essential items. The Swiss army also has a ridiculous amount of bunkers and such in the mountains. Also, Switzerland has a huge stockpile of weapons and really high rates of weapon ownership. Funny how Europe's most peaceful country is crazy prepared for war .
Yes, many of those tunnels and civilian bunkers set up in subway stations do exist. Problem is that it gives a false sense of security as it enables the people to only survive the initial blast wave. Afterwards what happens, as there is no food or water, rubble might be blocking the ways out and simply speaking, those people survive but are now trapped under what will likely be the most irradiated places on the planet (large cities). All the solutions are short term because as we discussed, no one knows any long term solution, so nothing really accounts for what to do after you survive it.
Switzerland does have that, Switzerland even has a small overcapacity when it comes to shelters, but what to do afterward is again the problem, because if everyone survives they're going to starve.
Same for the Netherlands, we have atomic shelters build for short term survival of an exchange, but no exit strategy for after you survive because yeah... The caves at Valkenburg had the largest shelter but there are other large ones. Not that any would survive a direct hit over here. The agency taking care of them was disbanded in 1986.
Disciple of Fate wrote: WW2 is both the worst and the best example to prove/disprove the stockpile viability idea. Worst because a war lasting 5 years on a European scale like WW2 is incredibly unlikely now that so many major players have nuclear weapons, the time scale being completely unrealistic. The best because exactly, there was famine, in the 5th year of the war, no stockpile is going to last years. Look at the strategic oil stockpiles of the US for example, they represent just 5 months of imports. Most wars are neither as intensive or as long lasting as WW2 and when we talk about modern militaries (i.e. of rich countries who could afford to actually stockpile) fighting in a equipment capacity will be decided upon in weeks at best. Then you have to take into account that if it actually comes to an invasion your stockpiles are either going to be overrun or destroyed. What good would have food stockpiles had done in WW2 when the Nazi's could and did just take every scrap of food available in places? Like I said, places such as countries in Africa that really need food stockpiles are just to poor to afford them. The West really has no need for them as any war that would lead to actual famine is either going to end up in a nuclear exchange or surrender, as its become incredibly one sided for famine to take hold.
A full-out nuclear war is going to be many more times as intensive as WW2 was. All of the destruction of 5 years of WW2 could be done in a matter of minutes with nuclear weapons. So of course there will be famine. Also, saying that fighting between modern militaries will be over in weeks at best is making a pretty controversial statement that is not really backed up by the realities of recent conflicts. It is the same thing they said before WW1. But that is an entirely different discussion. And yeah, an invading army could take the stockpiles (a smart defender will destroy them first though). So what? An invading army will also be able to take your treasury and make use of your highways. So should the government stop saving money or building highways? That is a non-argument.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yeah but you brought up radiation longevity which is why i mentioned them. Realistically there is no way to provide food for or long term medical supplies for after a global nuclear war. What few people would have survived are now left with an enormousness stock of excess food and medication with a shelf life that won't be that long. So best case scenario is that you feed some survivors while having spend billions if not trillions on supplies that are just going to decay away because 99% of the intended recipients are dead. That is if those stockpiles don't get hit first as tertiary targets. The problem of stockpiling is that you're doing it for a time when society has absolutely collapsed, with possibly no government infrastructure available anymore to get those surviving stockpiles anywhere they are needed. You would need an immense infrastructure just to ensure stockpiles can be accessible on food, an immense infrastructure that will easily collapse with the rest of society. So why not spend those billions or trillions on actual projects that are beneficial in the here and the now, instead of a possible future in which almost everyone is dead anyway. Its just a waste of money.
A government does not need to stockpile food for all of its citizens. The chance of that ever being needed is pretty much non-existent because either lots of people might die, or the catastrophe is not so big that everyone needs food and medical aid. They simply need to have enough stockpiles to feed large groups of people for a certain amount of time. The infrastructure needed to distribute food actually is not very big, especially not if you decentralise it and establish stockpiles on local levels (let's say municipality level).
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also taking Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors into accounts is a bit misleading, because it was such a localized and isolated event. In the case of a global event almost everything the survivors will come into contact with will be contaminated, even the soil itself will be contaminated. So besides there being few survivors, now you're dealing with background radiation and genetic defects as a result that will likely have far reaching consequences on the overall future of the human race (miscarriage being the major one due to exposure). Plus that is taking into account that whoever survives will even have the capabilities to keep themselves alive for long enough to even start another generation.
Uh, no. Not everything will be contaminated. Contamination will only happen in the neighborhood of nuclear detonations. Nuclear detonations are only going to be at major population centres and military targets. Beyond that, background radiation will quickly decay to levels that aren't of much concern anymore. Rural areas won't get much contamination at all. Global background radiation would rise to levels that likely might be very concerning for us in a normal situation, but as I already said, having a somewhat higher risk of cancer or a somewhat higher chance that your future children will get genetic defects isn't really a concern if you just survived a nuclear war. You will be plenty happy you still have a life expectancy and that you still can get kids. As for keeping people alive long enough to establish a next generation, that is where the stockpiles come in again. A war would be very disruptive to normal food supplies, and stockpiles could keep people alive long enough until new food supplies are established.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I'm just of the opinion that stockpiling food is an incredible waste as A, you don't know how many people will survive so what is enough? and B, any stockpile that might survive a nuclear exchange might be horribly misplaced to actually help and C, this is wasting billions on a potential future 99% of the people paying for it will likely never see.
As for food shortages and enough production. Yeah, the argument that there is enough production in the world always gets brought up, yet there are still famines. What do you think is going to happen to food prices if suddenly the US, Europe, China and others are going to line up to buy months worth of food for billions of people? Its going to exacerbate food security problems in places such as Africa no doubt about it.
A. That is true, the government would have to make an estimate. But it is better to have something than it is to have nothing. B. True, but they might also be placed to save the lives of many people. C. Only a fool does not prepare for the future. Here in the Netherlands, we built massive dikes, dams, storm surge barriers and everything to such a high standard that the would protect from floods that might occur only once in 10,000 years, which 100% of the people who are paying for it will likely never see. Building stockpiles of food and medicine would be similar. We don't just want to keep ourselves safe right now, we also want future generations to be safe. As to effects on food security in Africa, I do doubt it will have much effect. As I said, the food security problems in Africa are related to the distribution of food and not the quantity of available food, so if that quantity changes, I would expect little effect.
Yes, many of those tunnels and civilian bunkers set up in subway stations do exist. Problem is that it gives a false sense of security as it enables the people to only survive the initial blast wave. Afterwards what happens, as there is no food or water, rubble might be blocking the ways out and simply speaking, those people survive but are now trapped under what will likely be the most irradiated places on the planet (large cities). All the solutions are short term because as we discussed, no one knows any long term solution, so nothing really accounts for what to do after you survive it. Switzerland does have that, Switzerland even has a small overcapacity when it comes to shelters, but what to do afterward is again the problem, because if everyone survives they're going to starve.
Same for the Netherlands, we have atomic shelters build for short term survival of an exchange, but no exit strategy for after you survive because yeah... The caves at Valkenburg had the largest shelter but there are other large ones. Not that any would survive a direct hit over here. The agency taking care of them was disbanded in 1986.
I live almost right next to one of those BB bunkers . It was a command post and they have recently restored it back to its authentic 1960's state with all kinds of old equipment. It is pretty neat.
As to shelters in metro networks, that actually solves a lot of the problems you mention. People will be able to travel through the tunnels to outside of the city, beyond the most heavily destroyed and irradiated areas. As to what you when you exit? Yeah, that is where those stockpiles would be handy. It would allow people to survive until food supplies have been restored, which would be the main priority of the government. Most infrastructure for the production of food exists in rural areas, so in the long term food should not be too much of an issue. It is really only the direct aftermath of the war that would be problematic, and that is why those stockpiles are so essential.
Disciple of Fate wrote: WW2 is both the worst and the best example to prove/disprove the stockpile viability idea. Worst because a war lasting 5 years on a European scale like WW2 is incredibly unlikely now that so many major players have nuclear weapons, the time scale being completely unrealistic. The best because exactly, there was famine, in the 5th year of the war, no stockpile is going to last years. Look at the strategic oil stockpiles of the US for example, they represent just 5 months of imports. Most wars are neither as intensive or as long lasting as WW2 and when we talk about modern militaries (i.e. of rich countries who could afford to actually stockpile) fighting in a equipment capacity will be decided upon in weeks at best. Then you have to take into account that if it actually comes to an invasion your stockpiles are either going to be overrun or destroyed. What good would have food stockpiles had done in WW2 when the Nazi's could and did just take every scrap of food available in places? Like I said, places such as countries in Africa that really need food stockpiles are just to poor to afford them. The West really has no need for them as any war that would lead to actual famine is either going to end up in a nuclear exchange or surrender, as its become incredibly one sided for famine to take hold.
A full-out nuclear war is going to be many more times as intensive as WW2 was. All of the destruction of 5 years of WW2 could be done in a matter of minutes with nuclear weapons. So of course there will be famine.
Also, saying that fighting between modern militaries will be over in weeks at best is making a pretty controversial statement that is not really backed up by the realities of recent conflicts. It is the same thing they said before WW1. But that is an entirely different discussion.
And yeah, an invading army could take the stockpiles (a smart defender will destroy them first though). So what? An invading army will also be able to take your treasury and make use of your highways. So should the government stop saving money or building highways? That is a non-argument.
No, you claimed stockpiles would also be useful in wartime and famine. Now you combine war and nuclear war. I was separating war in the case of WW2 with nuclear war. And again, why stockpile for an event in which 99% of the people are going to die with no guarantee those stockpiles will actually survive or be useful to any survivors? WW2 was a terrible example in support of stockpiles as no stockpile would last 5+ years for an entire country anyway.
We discussed the week thing before, suffice to say for modern military equipment with low production rate a winner will become sufficiently clear in the first few weeks. So what would be the point in continuing the war into famine when you obviously are losing? And again, if the enemy has such superiority that they can force famine upon you, why would they not just wait out for the stockpiles to disappear? Its an unrealistic scenario for the usefulness of stockpiles. WW1 is the perfect example actually, as the blockaded caused food shortages, you might say that wouldn't happen if they had stockpiles, but then what if they just continued the war for another year worth of blockading?
And the argument that the enemy could take your food in wartime is not a non-argument. Because in your WW2 example the Nazi's would have done exactly that to any food stockpile and you and I both know that. Food stockpiles in regular wartime have almost no strategic value beyond prolonging the inevitable.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yeah but you brought up radiation longevity which is why i mentioned them. Realistically there is no way to provide food for or long term medical supplies for after a global nuclear war. What few people would have survived are now left with an enormousness stock of excess food and medication with a shelf life that won't be that long. So best case scenario is that you feed some survivors while having spend billions if not trillions on supplies that are just going to decay away because 99% of the intended recipients are dead. That is if those stockpiles don't get hit first as tertiary targets. The problem of stockpiling is that you're doing it for a time when society has absolutely collapsed, with possibly no government infrastructure available anymore to get those surviving stockpiles anywhere they are needed. You would need an immense infrastructure just to ensure stockpiles can be accessible on food, an immense infrastructure that will easily collapse with the rest of society. So why not spend those billions or trillions on actual projects that are beneficial in the here and the now, instead of a possible future in which almost everyone is dead anyway. Its just a waste of money.
A government does not need to stockpile food for all of its citizens. The chance of that ever being needed is pretty much non-existent because either lots of people might die, or the catastrophe is not so big that everyone needs food and medical aid. They simply need to have enough stockpiles to feed large groups of people for a certain amount of time. The infrastructure needed to distribute food actually is not very big, especially not if you decentralise it and establish stockpiles on local levels (let's say municipality level).
So if the government is already just betting on the vast majority of its population dying, why even bother with the remaining survivors? What if more people survive than expected? Etc etc. Its a very expensive project that might never pay off even in the event of nuclear war. If you start stockpiles you also realistically would start investing in people surviving. But then how many would you plan for in that case etc. Its possible, but likely just enormously wasteful.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also taking Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors into accounts is a bit misleading, because it was such a localized and isolated event. In the case of a global event almost everything the survivors will come into contact with will be contaminated, even the soil itself will be contaminated. So besides there being few survivors, now you're dealing with background radiation and genetic defects as a result that will likely have far reaching consequences on the overall future of the human race (miscarriage being the major one due to exposure). Plus that is taking into account that whoever survives will even have the capabilities to keep themselves alive for long enough to even start another generation.
Uh, no. Not everything will be contaminated. Contamination will only happen in the neighborhood of nuclear detonations. Nuclear detonations are only going to be at major population centres and military targets. Beyond that, background radiation will quickly decay to levels that aren't of much concern anymore. Rural areas won't get much contamination at all. Global background radiation would rise to levels that likely might be very concerning for us in a normal situation, but as I already said, having a somewhat higher risk of cancer or a somewhat higher chance that your future children will get genetic defects isn't really a concern if you just survived a nuclear war. You will be plenty happy you still have a life expectancy and that you still can get kids. As for keeping people alive long enough to establish a next generation, that is where the stockpiles come in again. A war would be very disruptive to normal food supplies, and stockpiles could keep people alive long enough until new food supplies are established.
Not really, contamination can spread over hundreds of kilometers, just look at contamination maps of Chernobyl or Fukushima. It depends on the weapon in question of course, but spread patterns depending on conditions can be quite significant. While those doses aren't deadly as is, they do contaminate food and water to a sufficient degree.
Also you keep bringing in stockpiles for next generations, but realistically the shelf life for most medicine and food if it survives at all will be a decade, a bit more if your lucky. Its not going to feed your grand kids. Plus what kind of medication and how would you use it without doctors? Its great for people who live close by to such a stockpile, but distribution is going to be a serious issue. Plus what if those people have zero know how on how to get reliable food production started. Even most farmers nowadays are dependent on seeds provided by companies.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I'm just of the opinion that stockpiling food is an incredible waste as A, you don't know how many people will survive so what is enough? and B, any stockpile that might survive a nuclear exchange might be horribly misplaced to actually help and C, this is wasting billions on a potential future 99% of the people paying for it will likely never see.
As for food shortages and enough production. Yeah, the argument that there is enough production in the world always gets brought up, yet there are still famines. What do you think is going to happen to food prices if suddenly the US, Europe, China and others are going to line up to buy months worth of food for billions of people? Its going to exacerbate food security problems in places such as Africa no doubt about it.
A. That is true, the government would have to make an estimate. But it is better to have something than it is to have nothing.
B. True, but they might also be placed to save the lives of many people.
C. Only a fool does not prepare for the future. Here in the Netherlands, we built massive dikes, dams, storm surge barriers and everything to such a high standard that the would protect from floods that might occur only once in 10,000 years, which 100% of the people who are paying for it will likely never see. Building stockpiles of food and medicine would be similar. We don't just want to keep ourselves safe right now, we also want future generations to be safe.
As to effects on food security in Africa, I do doubt it will have much effect. As I said, the food security problems in Africa are related to the distribution of food and not the quantity of available food, so if that quantity changes, I would expect little effect.
A. possibly, but that is debatable, the problem is cost versus any benefit. But in that case you could plan against a host of end of the world scenarios, which is just very expensive.
B. Many people for a while, then the food runs out and they still starve as the most likely scenario. The environment just doesn't support many people with no agricultural knowledge whatsoever.
C. What future though? The future of the state or the Dutch? Those won't exist anymore. A similar argument could be made to pump billions or trillions in the space program in case an asteroid hits us, but why? Money is a finite resource best spent on other things. Those water defences keep the vast majority of the Dutch save and our Dutch future protected. Any stockpiles would keep an incredible minority and very little in the way of a future safe. There is a significant difference in scope between the two, because what those people are paying for in waterworks is keeping the Netherlands safe and their own economic prosperity with it. There is no guarantee food stockpiles will enable any survivors to actually survive beyond the short term.
The quantity changes and the price is driven upwards. Now we already have distribution problems because its more profitable to sell it to the West, what do you think will happen when huge new buyers come to the market? Just like how Western demand for biofuel causes food problems in poor countries, because those farmers produce what sells.
Yes, many of those tunnels and civilian bunkers set up in subway stations do exist. Problem is that it gives a false sense of security as it enables the people to only survive the initial blast wave. Afterwards what happens, as there is no food or water, rubble might be blocking the ways out and simply speaking, those people survive but are now trapped under what will likely be the most irradiated places on the planet (large cities). All the solutions are short term because as we discussed, no one knows any long term solution, so nothing really accounts for what to do after you survive it.
Switzerland does have that, Switzerland even has a small overcapacity when it comes to shelters, but what to do afterward is again the problem, because if everyone survives they're going to starve.
Same for the Netherlands, we have atomic shelters build for short term survival of an exchange, but no exit strategy for after you survive because yeah... The caves at Valkenburg had the largest shelter but there are other large ones. Not that any would survive a direct hit over here. The agency taking care of them was disbanded in 1986.
I live almost right next to one of those BB bunkers . It was a command post and they have recently restored it back to its authentic 1960's state with all kinds of old equipment. It is pretty neat.
As to shelters in metro networks, that actually solves a lot of the problems you mention. People will be able to travel through the tunnels to outside of the city, beyond the most heavily destroyed and irradiated areas. As to what you when you exit? Yeah, that is where those stockpiles would be handy. It would allow people to survive until food supplies have been restored, which would be the main priority of the government. Most infrastructure for the production of food exists in rural areas, so in the long term food should not be too much of an issue. It is really only the direct aftermath of the war that would be problematic, and that is why those stockpiles are so essential.
True, but most of those metro networks don't leave the cities, so people are still stuck in the city (depends on the amount of hits too). As for food supplies being restored, again how? Most Western agriculture is dependent on outside sources for parts, fuel, seeds etc. That whole system is going to break down and those farmers might not even be around anymore. How would you just restore food supplies with a large group of people who have no clue how? The government won't survive either in many cases, because they are in prime targets to hit and infrastructure collapse will prevent any designated survivors to have massive problems restoring anything if at all possible. Food stockpiles being useful are a very best case scenario. Sure you can do it, but its going to be incredibly expensive.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Well, uh, no one brought up that idea at all. Did a survivalist piss you off recently?
Actually, yes, yes one did. I know a fat chain smoking schmuck of a manchild who was dissapointed that the world didnt end. He thinks hes going to be some king because he owns a handful of guns and has convinced himself hes some hardass.
Greys downplaying the whole nuclear war just pushed me wrong and even now people are posting with essentially "Oh it would just be hell on earth, thats not so bad right?"
Its just pants on head maddening.
Well I can't really blame you for your response then.
Desubot wrote: There is a good chance that a lot of the problem from a nuclear war would probably be the massive amounts of radioactive dust floating around then getting into food supplies.
Potential air bursting nukes for that theoretical emp shutting down massive amounts of electrical systems.
though its theoretical and we probably wont find out anytime soon.
if anything dont live in the main cities or near military bases. and dont breath in the dust unless you want thyroid cancer.
there was a sci show episode about the dust from nuke testing above ground in the mid west reaching all the way out east as rain causing like 1000 cases of cancer and screwing up a ton of xray film packets or something like that.
Well yes, life post a nuclear apocalypse is going to suck. But it will be life.
As mentioned the radioactive dusts clouds, while awful, won't be as bad as many people portray. Fallout is not a realistic view of what a post-appocalyptic world looks like, dusty and barren. Think Chernobyl instead for what the long term effects of large doses of radiation are. A higher rate of mutation for effected creatures, but still plenty of lush wildlife. Keep in mind that Chernobyl actually released more radioactive dust than an actual bomb would, this is because the bomb turns more of its material into pure energy. And that radiation doesn't stick around. Its the particles which did not undergo immediate Fusion/Fission which cause the long term fallout, and bombs leave less of those than a reactor failure does.
Plus, the radioactive dust decays very rapidly. Within 2 weeks it goes down to ~1% of its initial radioactivity. Which what a bunker is intended for, survive the fallout period and emerge once most of it has decayed.
Are there going to be long term bad effects? Yes. Farming will be difficult for a while, but not impossible. But of course most people will have been killed by the massive nuclear exchanges leveling major population centers so you'll have a much smaller population to feed.
TLR. Nuclear apocalypse isn't the end of all human life. It would just be the end of our current civilization.
Now my promised calculations regarding existing nuclear bombs and total land surface area.
Approximately 30% of Earth's surface is covered by land. Or approximately 148,940,000 km2
There are around 15,000 nuclear bombs in existence today.
This means that if you divide Earth's total land surface up between all the nukes, each nuke has to deal with 9,929.33 square kilometers. Not even the Tsar bomb had enough output to cover that much area.
Furthermore, if we consider how an actual total nuclear exchange would play out, we will realize there are many areas that will be totally ignored. Entire countries and parts of countries.
If the US, China, and Russia all decide to unload on each other, are any of them going to throw nukes at say South Africa? Brazil? Australia? Nope.
Just within the US. Would Russia or China waste nukes on the small towns of Kansas, Nebraska, and the rest of the Midwest? Would the US bother to hit all the small cities in Siberia? Nope. They'd be hitting the major population centers and major military bases, with multiple nukes for each target instead of just one.
You'll have a lot of, and indeed most, land which will be untouched. Only experiencing the fallout, which as mentioned will go away within a couple weeks. The environment will undoubtedly suffer immensely, and life will suck. But it will go on.
They have the nukes, but even in all out war most of those nukes aren't getting fired. The reason they have that many weapons isn't because either the US or Russia has any desire to blanket every single bit of the Earth in nuclear hellfire in the case of nukes being fired. They have that many weapons because nukes can't be kept at a constant state of readiness. You can only keep a missile with fuel tanks loaded for so long before you have to pump the fuel out or start to degrade the tank. You can only cycle fuel in and out so many times before you need to take it off line for cleaning and maintenance. On top of that silos need to be maintained. So if you want to have 50 missiles ready at any moment, you need several hundred in your stockpile, to account for all the off time a nuke needs.
And then if firing does happen, missiles aren't being fired for saturation. Another reason there are so many nukes in the stockpile is because a lot of missiles are going to be fired at known missile sites, sites that weren't primed for initial launch. And missiles being fired there, and missiles being fired at major population centres, they're going to be fired with a lot of redundancy in mind. YOu might be able to wipe New York with a single MIRV, but you don't just send one and figure that's job done. You fire a lot of missiles and make sure of the job. And being sure of the job means firing multiple missiles at each key location, because between the decades old tech to the chaos of the sudden development of nuclear armageddon there's plenty of uncertainty in each individual missile. So New York and Moscow are probably going to be blown up several times over, sucks for them, but good luck for those of us living in far less important places because there won't be enough missiles to be fired there.
I'm not saying nuclear war won't be horrific. It will be. I'm certainly not going in to the weird stuff in here by some posters that it won't be that bad, because god damn what is that about. I'm just saying that while the nuke stockpile of the major nuclear powers might be theoretically able to blow up literally everything everywhere, if war did break out a lot of missiles will never get launched, and most of the rest will be used up in heavily redundant attacks on on key military and population centres.
Iron_Captain wrote: Funny how Europe's most peaceful country is crazy prepared for war .
I suppose they have to waste all that Nazi gold on something, and you can only buy so many watches
Seriously Disciple of Fate has pretty comprehensively dealt with the whole idea. You can't prepare for an ELE, that's why it's an ELE, it's beyond our capacity as a species to survive. Prepping - on the individual or societal scale - is futile(unless your goal is to extend your own personal survival from a few weeks to a few months before starving to death or gaking your own guts out from radiation poisoning), it's "disaster theatre" in the same way that stuff like the TSA is "security theatre".
Not at all; I'd be willing to bet that if there's another alert, most people will write it off as a hoax after the fallout last time, even if it's real. They've now got a system that no-one trusts.
Well there was another false alarm in Japan regarding missile launch from North Korea. That one was withdrew faster than in Hawaii so less panic there.
Not at all; I'd be willing to bet that if there's another alert, most people will write it off as a hoax after the fallout last time, even if it's real. They've now got a system that no-one trusts.
That's not how things work in reality.
Just because a system fails once doesn't mean it gets ignored.
I'd only worry if this becomes a regular occurrence.
One of the dorms at my university had a fire alarm so sensative burnt popcorn set it off. Now there's about 40 rooms a floor, with maybe 80-100 students spread among them. Four floors. How often do you think someone burnt popcorn in that building? If you guessed weekly you'd be right, and that fire alarm went off weekly. Probably took a month and a half before all the new residents stopped paying attention to the fire alarm. It's a big deal sure. Someday there might be a real fire, but the damn thing goes off so much too many people will just assume popcorn got burned again. But that didn't happen after one instance.
The world is going to be a terrible place to live after a full all-out nuclear war, and given the level of comfort I enjoy today, I am probably ok NOT surviving the initial strike.
First of all, besides the level of death and destruction to everything in target areas, there will be ongoing issues for a long long long time. Society will collapse in most areas, and essentially you'll have pockets of survivors led by warlords much like you see in Walking Dead, just without the zombies. But in addition to that, only about 5,000 people in the US know how to run a nuclear power plant, and I highly doubt those will continue to be maintained, so you'll have a whole host of new disasters to follow. Actually, even nuclear plants in countries not hit will face issues too.
I reckon that the first years following that kind of event will be followed with massive famine and disease. There will be bands of marauders looting and raping and taking whatever they want, and then smaller city-states led by pretty tough individuals.
I think those who are now dependent on trade to import food, have a great reliance on technology, and access to weapons, are probably the places you wouldn't want to be at. And while I think the oceans are going to suffer too, probably the best places to live are in the remote pacific where its fairly isolated and people can fish. But the last place I would want to be is in New York or California, or places like that. Its just going to be terrible.
There are huge areas of the world that probably wouldn't get hit, like Africa, and South America, but once those societies see what happens, and trade stops and supplies go, and rioting and looting starts up, those will be very dangerous places to live in too.
You're assuming those nuclear power plants aren't targets in the first place, which they probably would. Knocking out the electrical infrastructure helps cripple the opposing nation surely?
Disciple of Fate wrote: WW2 is both the worst and the best example to prove/disprove the stockpile viability idea. Worst because a war lasting 5 years on a European scale like WW2 is incredibly unlikely now that so many major players have nuclear weapons, the time scale being completely unrealistic. The best because exactly, there was famine, in the 5th year of the war, no stockpile is going to last years. Look at the strategic oil stockpiles of the US for example, they represent just 5 months of imports. Most wars are neither as intensive or as long lasting as WW2 and when we talk about modern militaries (i.e. of rich countries who could afford to actually stockpile) fighting in a equipment capacity will be decided upon in weeks at best. Then you have to take into account that if it actually comes to an invasion your stockpiles are either going to be overrun or destroyed. What good would have food stockpiles had done in WW2 when the Nazi's could and did just take every scrap of food available in places? Like I said, places such as countries in Africa that really need food stockpiles are just to poor to afford them. The West really has no need for them as any war that would lead to actual famine is either going to end up in a nuclear exchange or surrender, as its become incredibly one sided for famine to take hold.
A full-out nuclear war is going to be many more times as intensive as WW2 was. All of the destruction of 5 years of WW2 could be done in a matter of minutes with nuclear weapons. So of course there will be famine.
Also, saying that fighting between modern militaries will be over in weeks at best is making a pretty controversial statement that is not really backed up by the realities of recent conflicts. It is the same thing they said before WW1. But that is an entirely different discussion.
And yeah, an invading army could take the stockpiles (a smart defender will destroy them first though). So what? An invading army will also be able to take your treasury and make use of your highways. So should the government stop saving money or building highways? That is a non-argument.
No, you claimed stockpiles would also be useful in wartime and famine. Now you combine war and nuclear war. I was separating war in the case of WW2 with nuclear war. And again, why stockpile for an event in which 99% of the people are going to die with no guarantee those stockpiles will actually survive or be useful to any survivors? WW2 was a terrible example in support of stockpiles as no stockpile would last 5+ years for an entire country anyway.
It doesn't need to last 5 years for an entire country. That is a strawman.
Disciple of Fate wrote: We discussed the week thing before, suffice to say for modern military equipment with low production rate a winner will become sufficiently clear in the first few weeks.
This is off-topic, so let me just say that reality seems to disagree with you and leave it at that.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So what would be the point in continuing the war into famine when you obviously are losing? And again, if the enemy has such superiority that they can force famine upon you, why would they not just wait out for the stockpiles to disappear? Its an unrealistic scenario for the usefulness of stockpiles. WW1 is the perfect example actually, as the blockaded caused food shortages, you might say that wouldn't happen if they had stockpiles, but then what if they just continued the war for another year worth of blockading?
You want to continue the war because you are not necessarily losing. Buying yourself another year of time can be huge in war if you are waiting for allies to reinforce you or for more equipment to be made.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And the argument that the enemy could take your food in wartime is not a non-argument. Because in your WW2 example the Nazi's would have done exactly that to any food stockpile and you and I both know that. Food stockpiles in regular wartime have almost no strategic value beyond prolonging the inevitable.
It is a non-argument because the same argument can be made for every single piece of infrastructure a government builds.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yeah but you brought up radiation longevity which is why i mentioned them. Realistically there is no way to provide food for or long term medical supplies for after a global nuclear war. What few people would have survived are now left with an enormousness stock of excess food and medication with a shelf life that won't be that long. So best case scenario is that you feed some survivors while having spend billions if not trillions on supplies that are just going to decay away because 99% of the intended recipients are dead. That is if those stockpiles don't get hit first as tertiary targets. The problem of stockpiling is that you're doing it for a time when society has absolutely collapsed, with possibly no government infrastructure available anymore to get those surviving stockpiles anywhere they are needed. You would need an immense infrastructure just to ensure stockpiles can be accessible on food, an immense infrastructure that will easily collapse with the rest of society. So why not spend those billions or trillions on actual projects that are beneficial in the here and the now, instead of a possible future in which almost everyone is dead anyway. Its just a waste of money.
A government does not need to stockpile food for all of its citizens. The chance of that ever being needed is pretty much non-existent because either lots of people might die, or the catastrophe is not so big that everyone needs food and medical aid. They simply need to have enough stockpiles to feed large groups of people for a certain amount of time. The infrastructure needed to distribute food actually is not very big, especially not if you decentralise it and establish stockpiles on local levels (let's say municipality level).
So if the government is already just betting on the vast majority of its population dying, why even bother with the remaining survivors?
If that is your argument, then I can rest my case. No offense, but that comes across to me as sounding quite psychopathic. Why bother with the remaining survivors? Well, maybe because some people actually value human life and want so save as much people as possible?
Disciple of Fate wrote: What if more people survive than expected? Etc etc. Its a very expensive project that might never pay off even in the event of nuclear war. If you start stockpiles you also realistically would start investing in people surviving. But then how many would you plan for in that case etc. Its possible, but likely just enormously wasteful.
Yes, it might be wasteful. But it might also prove to be invaluable. Like with the Delta Works, it is a consideration the government needs to make. How much money do we spend on protection from potential future disasters vs things that will be more immediately useful. I for one, am glad the Dutch government decided to build the Delta Works, and would also be glad if they took more measures to protect against other potential future disasters such as a nuclear war.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also taking Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors into accounts is a bit misleading, because it was such a localized and isolated event. In the case of a global event almost everything the survivors will come into contact with will be contaminated, even the soil itself will be contaminated. So besides there being few survivors, now you're dealing with background radiation and genetic defects as a result that will likely have far reaching consequences on the overall future of the human race (miscarriage being the major one due to exposure). Plus that is taking into account that whoever survives will even have the capabilities to keep themselves alive for long enough to even start another generation.
Uh, no. Not everything will be contaminated. Contamination will only happen in the neighborhood of nuclear detonations. Nuclear detonations are only going to be at major population centres and military targets. Beyond that, background radiation will quickly decay to levels that aren't of much concern anymore. Rural areas won't get much contamination at all. Global background radiation would rise to levels that likely might be very concerning for us in a normal situation, but as I already said, having a somewhat higher risk of cancer or a somewhat higher chance that your future children will get genetic defects isn't really a concern if you just survived a nuclear war. You will be plenty happy you still have a life expectancy and that you still can get kids. As for keeping people alive long enough to establish a next generation, that is where the stockpiles come in again. A war would be very disruptive to normal food supplies, and stockpiles could keep people alive long enough until new food supplies are established.
Not really, contamination can spread over hundreds of kilometers, just look at contamination maps of Chernobyl or Fukushima. It depends on the weapon in question of course, but spread patterns depending on conditions can be quite significant. While those doses aren't deadly as is, they do contaminate food and water to a sufficient degree.
None of that is lethal, so none of that will be of concern in a nuclear war. Yes, there will be contamination, but if you just survived a nuclear war I doubt you will care about contaminated food killing you 60 years down the road when the alternative is a lack of food killing you in 2 weeks.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also you keep bringing in stockpiles for next generations, but realistically the shelf life for most medicine and food if it survives at all will be a decade, a bit more if your lucky. Its not going to feed your grand kids. Plus what kind of medication and how would you use it without doctors? Its great for people who live close by to such a stockpile, but distribution is going to be a serious issue. Plus what if those people have zero know how on how to get reliable food production started. Even most farmers nowadays are dependent on seeds provided by companies.
Like all infrastructure, stockpiles would need to be maintained. And no, after a nuclear war those stockpiles won't last long enough to feed your grandkids, but that isn't needed. A stockpile would just need to be able to provide for the people living in the local area to survive the initial period of chaos that would follow a nuclear strike, until the government can restore control and get a normal food supply running again. A nuclear war isn't going to destroy every single thing on earth. There will still be doctors, farms, seeds and everything. If you ever set foot outside of a city, you will notice that infrastructure for food production tends to be outside of cities. So unless someone were stupid enough to aim nukes at farmland instead of cities, food is not going to be an issue in the "post-apocalypse". At least, not in a place like Europe where all you need to do to get food is to put a seed in the ground and wait for a bit. Less fertile areas that are largely dependent on food import would suffer more.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I'm just of the opinion that stockpiling food is an incredible waste as A, you don't know how many people will survive so what is enough? and B, any stockpile that might survive a nuclear exchange might be horribly misplaced to actually help and C, this is wasting billions on a potential future 99% of the people paying for it will likely never see.
As for food shortages and enough production. Yeah, the argument that there is enough production in the world always gets brought up, yet there are still famines. What do you think is going to happen to food prices if suddenly the US, Europe, China and others are going to line up to buy months worth of food for billions of people? Its going to exacerbate food security problems in places such as Africa no doubt about it.
A. That is true, the government would have to make an estimate. But it is better to have something than it is to have nothing.
B. True, but they might also be placed to save the lives of many people.
C. Only a fool does not prepare for the future. Here in the Netherlands, we built massive dikes, dams, storm surge barriers and everything to such a high standard that the would protect from floods that might occur only once in 10,000 years, which 100% of the people who are paying for it will likely never see. Building stockpiles of food and medicine would be similar. We don't just want to keep ourselves safe right now, we also want future generations to be safe.
As to effects on food security in Africa, I do doubt it will have much effect. As I said, the food security problems in Africa are related to the distribution of food and not the quantity of available food, so if that quantity changes, I would expect little effect.
A. possibly, but that is debatable, the problem is cost versus any benefit. But in that case you could plan against a host of end of the world scenarios, which is just very expensive.
B. Many people for a while, then the food runs out and they still starve as the most likely scenario. The environment just doesn't support many people with no agricultural knowledge whatsoever.
C. What future though? The future of the state or the Dutch? Those won't exist anymore. A similar argument could be made to pump billions or trillions in the space program in case an asteroid hits us, but why? Money is a finite resource best spent on other things. Those water defences keep the vast majority of the Dutch save and our Dutch future protected. Any stockpiles would keep an incredible minority and very little in the way of a future safe. There is a significant difference in scope between the two, because what those people are paying for in waterworks is keeping the Netherlands safe and their own economic prosperity with it. There is no guarantee food stockpiles will enable any survivors to actually survive beyond the short term.
A. Expensive, yes. But still a smart thing to do.
B. Why would they starve? Humans have survived in Europe for ten thousands of years in a variety of circumstances and now they would just suddenly all starve because reasons? As I have repeatedly mentioned, most of the infrastructure that we in the present day use to produce food is located in areas that would not be destroyed in a nuclear war. People are smart and very adaptable. When the nukes stop flying they aren't just going to sit there and wait until they starve. The stockpiles would allow them to survive until the farms can harvest a new supply of food and the really simple infrastructure to turn things like grain into bread (aka an oven) or an animal into meat (aka a knife) has been re-established. There would still be famine, most likely. But a lot more people would survive it than without stockpiles.
C. Both. Neither the Dutch state nor the Dutch people will suddenly magically cease to exist. Governments are in fact highly likely to still be around. They might be targets, but they know that. Which is why most governments have plans in place to make sure a form of government will survive no matter what. And even if the present government would not survive, the survivors would just set up a new one. Government is adaptable like that.
Iron_Captain wrote: As to shelters in metro networks, that actually solves a lot of the problems you mention. People will be able to travel through the tunnels to outside of the city, beyond the most heavily destroyed and irradiated areas. As to what you when you exit? Yeah, that is where those stockpiles would be handy. It would allow people to survive until food supplies have been restored, which would be the main priority of the government. Most infrastructure for the production of food exists in rural areas, so in the long term food should not be too much of an issue. It is really only the direct aftermath of the war that would be problematic, and that is why those stockpiles are so essential.
True, but most of those metro networks don't leave the cities, so people are still stuck in the city (depends on the amount of hits too). As for food supplies being restored, again how? Most Western agriculture is dependent on outside sources for parts, fuel, seeds etc. That whole system is going to break down and those farmers might not even be around anymore. How would you just restore food supplies with a large group of people who have no clue how? The government won't survive either in many cases, because they are in prime targets to hit and infrastructure collapse will prevent any designated survivors to have massive problems restoring anything if at all possible. Food stockpiles being useful are a very best case scenario. Sure you can do it, but its going to be incredibly expensive.
Metro networks that were designed as nuclear shelters do, and even those that do not often do lead to the outskirts of a city that would be unlikely to get hit very hard. As to how to restore food supplies? It is simple. The same way you rebuild any country after a destructive war. You will have lots of people that are left without job. You can use that manpower to compensate for machines that break down until international trade and infrastructure start coming back up again. Who knows, it might even actually boost the economy overall in the long term, just like with Germany or Japan after WW2.
I wouldn't be worried about nuclear plants still running. You'll have enough to do with all the little things; how do you fuel your car if the pumps don't work? How do you purify water? How do you repair/replace stuff overseas? Make clothes/tools/shelter from stuff you can scavenge? How do you prevent the looting?
We've lost most of the skills we'd need to survive because we don't need them in an advanced society.
Not at all; I'd be willing to bet that if there's another alert, most people will write it off as a hoax after the fallout last time, even if it's real. They've now got a system that no-one trusts.
That's not how things work in reality.
Just because a system fails once doesn't mean it gets ignored.
Its currently got a 100% false alarm rate. You bet that lots of people will ignore it if it goes off any time soon.
Herzlos wrote: I wouldn't be worried about nuclear plants still running. You'll have enough to do with all the little things; how do you fuel your car if the pumps don't work? How do you purify water? How do you repair/replace stuff overseas? Make clothes/tools/shelter from stuff you can scavenge? How do you prevent the looting?
I am not worried about them running. I would be worried about them NOT running. When they go down for various reasons because it will be impossible to tend to them, they will release additional radiation to the area.
So stay out of the Carolinas! And Pennsylvania! And for God's sake, Illinois!
Herzlos wrote: I wouldn't be worried about nuclear plants still running. You'll have enough to do with all the little things; how do you fuel your car if the pumps don't work? How do you purify water? How do you repair/replace stuff overseas? Make clothes/tools/shelter from stuff you can scavenge? How do you prevent the looting?
I am not worried about them running. I would be worried about them NOT running. When they go down for various reasons because it will be impossible to tend to them, they will release additional radiation to the area.
So stay out of the Carolinas!
Wouldnt that be assuming every failsafe goes bad? i guess in like a few hundred years of abandonment when all the pipes start to rust maybe but what would actually happen if all the homers abandon their posts?
Not at all; I'd be willing to bet that if there's another alert, most people will write it off as a hoax after the fallout last time, even if it's real. They've now got a system that no-one trusts.
That's not how things work in reality.
Just because a system fails once doesn't mean it gets ignored.
But now there's 2 false alarms.
One place i worked had fire alarm go off needlessly so reqularly everybody was just "bah another waste of time" when it went off. Nobody hurried outside. If the sound wasn't so infernal doubt many would have bothered in the first place!
But in addition to that, only about 5,000 people in the US know how to run a nuclear power plant, and I highly doubt those will continue to be maintained, so you'll have a whole host of new disasters to follow. Actually, even nuclear plants in countries not hit will face issues too.
If you are worried about a nuclear reactor melting down because nobody is there to keep it running, don't. The multiple safety systems in place mean that the reactor will shut itself down automatically even if nobody is there. And thats assuming that the reactor crew weren't informed of the incoming missiles and told to shut the reactor down anyway, which they will be. Modern nuclear reactors in the US anyway are built with just these scenarios in mind.
If a reactor ends up being a target/collateral damage of another target of a nuclear missile then you'll have some radiation leaks, but you did just get nuked anyway so...
Herzlos wrote: I wouldn't be worried about nuclear plants still running. You'll have enough to do with all the little things; how do you fuel your car if the pumps don't work? How do you purify water? How do you repair/replace stuff overseas? Make clothes/tools/shelter from stuff you can scavenge? How do you prevent the looting?
I am not worried about them running. I would be worried about them NOT running. When they go down for various reasons because it will be impossible to tend to them, they will release additional radiation to the area.
So stay out of the Carolinas!
Wouldnt that be assuming every failsafe goes bad? i guess in like a few hundred years of abandonment when all the pipes start to rust maybe but what would actually happen if all the homers abandon their posts?
Nothing. The reactor's safety systems would pull the fuel rods and seal the tanks. You'd realistically be looking at hundreds if not thousands of years before the actual structure decayed enough to leak radiation. At which point society will likely have rebuilt enough to be aware of the danger.
Herzlos wrote: I wouldn't be worried about nuclear plants still running. You'll have enough to do with all the little things; how do you fuel your car if the pumps don't work? How do you purify water? How do you repair/replace stuff overseas? Make clothes/tools/shelter from stuff you can scavenge? How do you prevent the looting?
I am not worried about them running. I would be worried about them NOT running. When they go down for various reasons because it will be impossible to tend to them, they will release additional radiation to the area.
So stay out of the Carolinas!
Wouldnt that be assuming every failsafe goes bad? i guess in like a few hundred years of abandonment when all the pipes start to rust maybe but what would actually happen if all the homers abandon their posts?
Nothing. The reactor's safety systems would pull the fuel rods and seal the tanks. You'd realistically be looking at hundreds if not thousands of years before the actual structure decayed enough to leak radiation. At which point society will likely have rebuilt enough to be aware of the danger.
by which time wouldn't they have also become significantly less radioactive, making the leak almost a non issue?
Herzlos wrote: I wouldn't be worried about nuclear plants still running. You'll have enough to do with all the little things; how do you fuel your car if the pumps don't work? How do you purify water? How do you repair/replace stuff overseas? Make clothes/tools/shelter from stuff you can scavenge? How do you prevent the looting?
I am not worried about them running. I would be worried about them NOT running. When they go down for various reasons because it will be impossible to tend to them, they will release additional radiation to the area.
So stay out of the Carolinas!
Wouldnt that be assuming every failsafe goes bad? i guess in like a few hundred years of abandonment when all the pipes start to rust maybe but what would actually happen if all the homers abandon their posts?
Nothing. The reactor's safety systems would pull the fuel rods and seal the tanks. You'd realistically be looking at hundreds if not thousands of years before the actual structure decayed enough to leak radiation. At which point society will likely have rebuilt enough to be aware of the danger.
by which time wouldn't they have also become significantly less radioactive, making the leak almost a non issue?
edit:formating
No, they're not going to be less radioactive, at least in any appreciable amount. But society will hopefully have rebuilt enough to at least be able to contain if not actually get the reactors functional again.
Not at all; I'd be willing to bet that if there's another alert, most people will write it off as a hoax after the fallout last time, even if it's real. They've now got a system that no-one trusts.
That's not how things work in reality.
Just because a system fails once doesn't mean it gets ignored.
Actually, officials have stated the logically legitimate concern that many people would ignore a genuine warning because of the failure in Hawaii.
Disciple of Fate wrote: WW2 is both the worst and the best example to prove/disprove the stockpile viability idea. Worst because a war lasting 5 years on a European scale like WW2 is incredibly unlikely now that so many major players have nuclear weapons, the time scale being completely unrealistic. The best because exactly, there was famine, in the 5th year of the war, no stockpile is going to last years. Look at the strategic oil stockpiles of the US for example, they represent just 5 months of imports. Most wars are neither as intensive or as long lasting as WW2 and when we talk about modern militaries (i.e. of rich countries who could afford to actually stockpile) fighting in a equipment capacity will be decided upon in weeks at best. Then you have to take into account that if it actually comes to an invasion your stockpiles are either going to be overrun or destroyed. What good would have food stockpiles had done in WW2 when the Nazi's could and did just take every scrap of food available in places? Like I said, places such as countries in Africa that really need food stockpiles are just to poor to afford them. The West really has no need for them as any war that would lead to actual famine is either going to end up in a nuclear exchange or surrender, as its become incredibly one sided for famine to take hold.
A full-out nuclear war is going to be many more times as intensive as WW2 was. All of the destruction of 5 years of WW2 could be done in a matter of minutes with nuclear weapons. So of course there will be famine. Also, saying that fighting between modern militaries will be over in weeks at best is making a pretty controversial statement that is not really backed up by the realities of recent conflicts. It is the same thing they said before WW1. But that is an entirely different discussion. And yeah, an invading army could take the stockpiles (a smart defender will destroy them first though). So what? An invading army will also be able to take your treasury and make use of your highways. So should the government stop saving money or building highways? That is a non-argument.
No, you claimed stockpiles would also be useful in wartime and famine. Now you combine war and nuclear war. I was separating war in the case of WW2 with nuclear war. And again, why stockpile for an event in which 99% of the people are going to die with no guarantee those stockpiles will actually survive or be useful to any survivors? WW2 was a terrible example in support of stockpiles as no stockpile would last 5+ years for an entire country anyway.
It doesn't need to last 5 years for an entire country. That is a strawman.
Its not a strawman, its the logical response to the example you said up as follows:
1. I said a famine in a Western country in the foreseeable future is highly unlikely as that would also mean global devastation of food production. 2. You countered by saying there was a famine in the Netherlands, a Western country, just 70 years ago. 3. I countered saying that this was in WW2, a war that will not be repeated for technological reasons. Any stockpile wouldn't have lasted until the fifth year of the war (when the famine occurred) because stocks won't last that long or the Nazis would have taken it to feed Germany and their army. Concluding that a famine in the fifth year of a World War is a terrible example to use as to why there need to be stockpiles. 4. Now you call me saying a stockpile wouldn't last five years in direct reference to your example a strawman.
I never said a stockpile needs to last for years, but in the case of your example it would have seeing as rationing was already quite heavy years before 45.
Disciple of Fate wrote: We discussed the week thing before, suffice to say for modern military equipment with low production rate a winner will become sufficiently clear in the first few weeks.
This is off-topic, so let me just say that reality seems to disagree with you and leave it at that.
Reality can't disagree with me seeing as we have not had a well trained modern equipped military facing off against another in the last few decades. The best examples we have are second rate powers with armies lacking key essentials to conduct a swift decisive war. What in lost in the opening weeks can't be replaced for perhaps months, any sufficiently trained military would immediately capitalize on the advantage of winning the first strike. For example in the Iraq-Iran War, Iran won the equipment battle, but there army was so poorly led and trained it had no way to capitalize on this. Countries like Russia and the US aren't going to fail on capitalizing.
For famine to occur in wartime there are some pretty crazy terms that need to be met. 1. One side has such an overwhelming advantage it can enforce a famine on its opponent with impunity. 2. The starving opponent with no way of winning in reality as it can't even break the blockade refuses to give up in the face of all reason. 3. We assume any nuclear power would just let itself be starved out instead of pressing the button.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So what would be the point in continuing the war into famine when you obviously are losing? And again, if the enemy has such superiority that they can force famine upon you, why would they not just wait out for the stockpiles to disappear? Its an unrealistic scenario for the usefulness of stockpiles. WW1 is the perfect example actually, as the blockaded caused food shortages, you might say that wouldn't happen if they had stockpiles, but then what if they just continued the war for another year worth of blockading?
You want to continue the war because you are not necessarily losing. Buying yourself another year of time can be huge in war if you are waiting for allies to reinforce you or for more equipment to be made.
Incredibly unrealistic. Your people are starving to death and that is pretty clearly definable as losing. Also no, buying a year isn't huge, because while you have to build up equipment from zero your opponent is just producing more to supplement their already surviving stock with veteran personnel that survived the first round. The amount of equipment would only favor the side who won the first engagement more heavily. As they would have free range to bomb any and all production and military facilities, further reducing output relative to the side already winning. Plus an ally only joining in after a year when the side they support already got crushed seems like a very silly way of conducting international politic, its highly unlikely.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And the argument that the enemy could take your food in wartime is not a non-argument. Because in your WW2 example the Nazi's would have done exactly that to any food stockpile and you and I both know that. Food stockpiles in regular wartime have almost no strategic value beyond prolonging the inevitable.
It is a non-argument because the same argument can be made for every single piece of infrastructure a government builds.
It isn't for three reasons. One, all the other infrastructure actually contributes to the overall prosperity and economic growth of the country, hoarding food only costs money. Two, like I said if you are facing famine you're already clearly on the losing side, having a few food stockpiles won't make a difference besides avoiding total defeat for a few months more. Lastly, when the enemy overruns food stockpiles all that effort to build them up is just lost while possibly helping them. Either you already lost the war and these stockpiles just stave off total defeat or you get invaded and the occupier can just use those food stockpiles for their own goals. Its not realistic or comparable to other infrastructure projects that actually serve a purpose beyond the time when the world goes down in a nuclear fireball.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yeah but you brought up radiation longevity which is why i mentioned them. Realistically there is no way to provide food for or long term medical supplies for after a global nuclear war. What few people would have survived are now left with an enormousness stock of excess food and medication with a shelf life that won't be that long. So best case scenario is that you feed some survivors while having spend billions if not trillions on supplies that are just going to decay away because 99% of the intended recipients are dead. That is if those stockpiles don't get hit first as tertiary targets. The problem of stockpiling is that you're doing it for a time when society has absolutely collapsed, with possibly no government infrastructure available anymore to get those surviving stockpiles anywhere they are needed. You would need an immense infrastructure just to ensure stockpiles can be accessible on food, an immense infrastructure that will easily collapse with the rest of society. So why not spend those billions or trillions on actual projects that are beneficial in the here and the now, instead of a possible future in which almost everyone is dead anyway. Its just a waste of money.
A government does not need to stockpile food for all of its citizens. The chance of that ever being needed is pretty much non-existent because either lots of people might die, or the catastrophe is not so big that everyone needs food and medical aid. They simply need to have enough stockpiles to feed large groups of people for a certain amount of time. The infrastructure needed to distribute food actually is not very big, especially not if you decentralise it and establish stockpiles on local levels (let's say municipality level).
So if the government is already just betting on the vast majority of its population dying, why even bother with the remaining survivors?
If that is your argument, then I can rest my case. No offense, but that comes across to me as sounding quite psychopathic. Why bother with the remaining survivors? Well, maybe because some people actually value human life and want so save as much people as possible?
Not really, its just being realistic. If you really want to save lives and as much people as possible there are far better things to invest money in in the here and now than hoping some people will survive a nuclear war that might never come.
And besides, if you really are concerned with saving as many people as possible you should be advocating for huge incredibly expensive bunker projects and such. But cost is always a limiting factor, and money spend on food stockpiles will likely just represent money wasted. That money can do far more good for more people in the here and now in my opinion.
Disciple of Fate wrote: What if more people survive than expected? Etc etc. Its a very expensive project that might never pay off even in the event of nuclear war. If you start stockpiles you also realistically would start investing in people surviving. But then how many would you plan for in that case etc. Its possible, but likely just enormously wasteful.
Yes, it might be wasteful. But it might also prove to be invaluable. Like with the Delta Works, it is a consideration the government needs to make. How much money do we spend on protection from potential future disasters vs things that will be more immediately useful. I for one, am glad the Dutch government decided to build the Delta Works, and would also be glad if they took more measures to protect against other potential future disasters such as a nuclear war.
Seeing as how we have had dozens of major floods in the last few centuries and exactly zero nuclear wars in the Netherlands there is a significant difference between the Delta Works and nuclear survival expenses. Like I said, why not spend trillions on building a space ship in case of an asteroid strike? There are so many things that could end civilization as we know it yet preparing for them all would bankrupt society. Money is better spent elsewhere than as some sort of possibly useful feature for the 1% who actually survived.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also taking Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors into accounts is a bit misleading, because it was such a localized and isolated event. In the case of a global event almost everything the survivors will come into contact with will be contaminated, even the soil itself will be contaminated. So besides there being few survivors, now you're dealing with background radiation and genetic defects as a result that will likely have far reaching consequences on the overall future of the human race (miscarriage being the major one due to exposure). Plus that is taking into account that whoever survives will even have the capabilities to keep themselves alive for long enough to even start another generation.
Uh, no. Not everything will be contaminated. Contamination will only happen in the neighborhood of nuclear detonations. Nuclear detonations are only going to be at major population centres and military targets. Beyond that, background radiation will quickly decay to levels that aren't of much concern anymore. Rural areas won't get much contamination at all. Global background radiation would rise to levels that likely might be very concerning for us in a normal situation, but as I already said, having a somewhat higher risk of cancer or a somewhat higher chance that your future children will get genetic defects isn't really a concern if you just survived a nuclear war. You will be plenty happy you still have a life expectancy and that you still can get kids. As for keeping people alive long enough to establish a next generation, that is where the stockpiles come in again. A war would be very disruptive to normal food supplies, and stockpiles could keep people alive long enough until new food supplies are established.
Not really, contamination can spread over hundreds of kilometers, just look at contamination maps of Chernobyl or Fukushima. It depends on the weapon in question of course, but spread patterns depending on conditions can be quite significant. While those doses aren't deadly as is, they do contaminate food and water to a sufficient degree.
None of that is lethal, so none of that will be of concern in a nuclear war. Yes, there will be contamination, but if you just survived a nuclear war I doubt you will care about contaminated food killing you 60 years down the road when the alternative is a lack of food killing you in 2 weeks.
That depends on the severity of the buildup of contamination in the produce and how it builds up in the human body. Its a significant risk to any surviving population that we don't know much about. And again distribution comes in, many people might not even be able to reach those stockpiles even if they prove useful. But stockpiles run out and food production needs to take over, if those foodstuffs are severely contaminated they might kill in significantly less than 60 years. If everybody dies from contamination 5 years after the stockpile runs out that isn't helpful either. Problematically there isn't a lot of research on the viability of food production, one of the issues that needs resolving beforehand preferably.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also you keep bringing in stockpiles for next generations, but realistically the shelf life for most medicine and food if it survives at all will be a decade, a bit more if your lucky. Its not going to feed your grand kids. Plus what kind of medication and how would you use it without doctors? Its great for people who live close by to such a stockpile, but distribution is going to be a serious issue. Plus what if those people have zero know how on how to get reliable food production started. Even most farmers nowadays are dependent on seeds provided by companies.
Like all infrastructure, stockpiles would need to be maintained. And no, after a nuclear war those stockpiles won't last long enough to feed your grandkids, but that isn't needed. A stockpile would just need to be able to provide for the people living in the local area to survive the initial period of chaos that would follow a nuclear strike, until the government can restore control and get a normal food supply running again. A nuclear war isn't going to destroy every single thing on earth. There will still be doctors, farms, seeds and everything. If you ever set foot outside of a city, you will notice that infrastructure for food production tends to be outside of cities. So unless someone were stupid enough to aim nukes at farmland instead of cities, food is not going to be an issue in the "post-apocalypse". At least, not in a place like Europe where all you need to do to get food is to put a seed in the ground and wait for a bit. Less fertile areas that are largely dependent on food import would suffer more.
Of course stockpiles need to be maintained, which is another expensive burden to creating them in the first place. But after the bombs drop all those people with the required knowledge of what is in a stockpile and what it does or even where it is might be dead.
You keep bringing up the government and normal food supply, but there is absolutely no guarantee at all that the government would survive in the first place (like in the Netherlands) or that restarting a normal food supply is even possible (with a host of possible problems). It won't destroy everything of course, but it would destroy enough. Those farmers are dependent on cities and infrastructure too. Farmers with animals depend on the existing infrastructure for animal food. Farmers with crops depend on others for seeds and fertilizer. Together they depend on the world for power, water, spare parts, fuel etc etc. Access to all those things will be lost. How easy is it to go back 200 years for those farmers? Same for doctors, they would lose all kinds of specialized equipment and locations, most dedicated medical facilities are located in urban areas. Its not just a matter of picking up the pieces in the countryside, losing the urban areas and the subsequent disruption of absolutely everything will have far reaching consequences they might not be able to overcome.
"All you need to do is put a seed in the ground" is a gross overstatement. Its more complicated than that with growing seasons, climate conditions and the fact that there is almost no crop diversity for a good part of modern farmers anymore. There is a host of issues with farming that people would just not be able to overcome without the knowhow. It might be overcome, but the questions is how many would overcome it?
Disciple of Fate wrote: I'm just of the opinion that stockpiling food is an incredible waste as A, you don't know how many people will survive so what is enough? and B, any stockpile that might survive a nuclear exchange might be horribly misplaced to actually help and C, this is wasting billions on a potential future 99% of the people paying for it will likely never see.
As for food shortages and enough production. Yeah, the argument that there is enough production in the world always gets brought up, yet there are still famines. What do you think is going to happen to food prices if suddenly the US, Europe, China and others are going to line up to buy months worth of food for billions of people? Its going to exacerbate food security problems in places such as Africa no doubt about it.
A. That is true, the government would have to make an estimate. But it is better to have something than it is to have nothing. B. True, but they might also be placed to save the lives of many people. C. Only a fool does not prepare for the future. Here in the Netherlands, we built massive dikes, dams, storm surge barriers and everything to such a high standard that the would protect from floods that might occur only once in 10,000 years, which 100% of the people who are paying for it will likely never see. Building stockpiles of food and medicine would be similar. We don't just want to keep ourselves safe right now, we also want future generations to be safe. As to effects on food security in Africa, I do doubt it will have much effect. As I said, the food security problems in Africa are related to the distribution of food and not the quantity of available food, so if that quantity changes, I would expect little effect.
A. possibly, but that is debatable, the problem is cost versus any benefit. But in that case you could plan against a host of end of the world scenarios, which is just very expensive. B. Many people for a while, then the food runs out and they still starve as the most likely scenario. The environment just doesn't support many people with no agricultural knowledge whatsoever. C. What future though? The future of the state or the Dutch? Those won't exist anymore. A similar argument could be made to pump billions or trillions in the space program in case an asteroid hits us, but why? Money is a finite resource best spent on other things. Those water defences keep the vast majority of the Dutch save and our Dutch future protected. Any stockpiles would keep an incredible minority and very little in the way of a future safe. There is a significant difference in scope between the two, because what those people are paying for in waterworks is keeping the Netherlands safe and their own economic prosperity with it. There is no guarantee food stockpiles will enable any survivors to actually survive beyond the short term.
A. Expensive, yes. But still a smart thing to do. B. Why would they starve? Humans have survived in Europe for ten thousands of years in a variety of circumstances and now they would just suddenly all starve because reasons? As I have repeatedly mentioned, most of the infrastructure that we in the present day use to produce food is located in areas that would not be destroyed in a nuclear war. People are smart and very adaptable. When the nukes stop flying they aren't just going to sit there and wait until they starve. The stockpiles would allow them to survive until the farms can harvest a new supply of food and the really simple infrastructure to turn things like grain into bread (aka an oven) or an animal into meat (aka a knife) has been re-established. There would still be famine, most likely. But a lot more people would survive it than without stockpiles. C. Both. Neither the Dutch state nor the Dutch people will suddenly magically cease to exist. Governments are in fact highly likely to still be around. They might be targets, but they know that. Which is why most governments have plans in place to make sure a form of government will survive no matter what. And even if the present government would not survive, the survivors would just set up a new one. Government is adaptable like that.
A. Smart is very subjective though, there are a lot of smart things that the government should invest in. Certainly there are more pressing matters to invest in. There are issues that will affect the full 100% of us in the future now, not issues that will affect the 1% when there no longer really is a future. B. Actually, humans as in Homo Sapiens have no definitive proof of being around Europe for tens of thousands of years, its just assumed as no real definitive proof has been found except at the very edges . Anyway, these people survived because they were all aimed at survival under those conditions or farmers who provided for themselves. Saying people have survived thousands of years is like dropping a call center employee in the middle of the Amazon and going "its fine, people have been living here for thousands of years". The absolute vast majority of the Western population has no clue how to survive outside of our urbanized life, they don't know how to hunt or grow crops, no clue what is edible in the wild etc etc. And as I said above, we don't know if farmers could just pick up the pieces, let alone produce enough food to feed a surviving population. C. Very debatable, any surviving government likely wouldn't have the capacity to actually control anyone like the national government did simply because they don't have any expertise in it. Setting up a new government won't make it a continuation of the old one, which is the key in some sense, because most governments see little in investing in a future they are no longer in. Still any shell government left will likely lack the resources, skilled people or expertise to actually get much done in the first few years or even decades. Warning times for a nuclear strike are incredibly short, in the Netherlands we might be talking about minutes at most, too late for most government personnel.
Iron_Captain wrote: As to shelters in metro networks, that actually solves a lot of the problems you mention. People will be able to travel through the tunnels to outside of the city, beyond the most heavily destroyed and irradiated areas. As to what you when you exit? Yeah, that is where those stockpiles would be handy. It would allow people to survive until food supplies have been restored, which would be the main priority of the government. Most infrastructure for the production of food exists in rural areas, so in the long term food should not be too much of an issue. It is really only the direct aftermath of the war that would be problematic, and that is why those stockpiles are so essential.
True, but most of those metro networks don't leave the cities, so people are still stuck in the city (depends on the amount of hits too). As for food supplies being restored, again how? Most Western agriculture is dependent on outside sources for parts, fuel, seeds etc. That whole system is going to break down and those farmers might not even be around anymore. How would you just restore food supplies with a large group of people who have no clue how? The government won't survive either in many cases, because they are in prime targets to hit and infrastructure collapse will prevent any designated survivors to have massive problems restoring anything if at all possible. Food stockpiles being useful are a very best case scenario. Sure you can do it, but its going to be incredibly expensive.
Metro networks that were designed as nuclear shelters do, and even those that do not often do lead to the outskirts of a city that would be unlikely to get hit very hard. As to how to restore food supplies? It is simple. The same way you rebuild any country after a destructive war. You will have lots of people that are left without job. You can use that manpower to compensate for machines that break down until international trade and infrastructure start coming back up again. Who knows, it might even actually boost the economy overall in the long term, just like with Germany or Japan after WW2.
Yes purpose build for sure, but not all purpose build have had that much thought put into it, it depends on the country.
Its not simple, this is far more devastating than a destructive war. Death toll alone would far outstrip the most destructive war in human history. Countries had help rebuilding after those destructive wars or had significant undamaged industrialized parts. That's highly unlikely to be the case after an all out nuclear exchange. Also lots of people? The urbanization rate in the West is 80+ percent. So best case scenario is that no more than 4/5ths of your population will die. Plus with the total collapse of infrastructure there is no immediate way to concentrate all those people, which might be a bad idea anyway food wise. It would take decades to rebuild a country after such an event and that would be the most optimistic expectation.
"it might even actually boost the economy overall in the long term"? You are wildly optimistic about this. There won't be much of an economy left after 80+ percent of your population as well as the vast majority of your economic centers get vaporized. Your veering into blind optimism on that part.
Disciple of Fate wrote: WW2 is both the worst and the best example to prove/disprove the stockpile viability idea. Worst because a war lasting 5 years on a European scale like WW2 is incredibly unlikely now that so many major players have nuclear weapons, the time scale being completely unrealistic. The best because exactly, there was famine, in the 5th year of the war, no stockpile is going to last years. Look at the strategic oil stockpiles of the US for example, they represent just 5 months of imports. Most wars are neither as intensive or as long lasting as WW2 and when we talk about modern militaries (i.e. of rich countries who could afford to actually stockpile) fighting in a equipment capacity will be decided upon in weeks at best. Then you have to take into account that if it actually comes to an invasion your stockpiles are either going to be overrun or destroyed. What good would have food stockpiles had done in WW2 when the Nazi's could and did just take every scrap of food available in places? Like I said, places such as countries in Africa that really need food stockpiles are just to poor to afford them. The West really has no need for them as any war that would lead to actual famine is either going to end up in a nuclear exchange or surrender, as its become incredibly one sided for famine to take hold.
A full-out nuclear war is going to be many more times as intensive as WW2 was. All of the destruction of 5 years of WW2 could be done in a matter of minutes with nuclear weapons. So of course there will be famine.
Also, saying that fighting between modern militaries will be over in weeks at best is making a pretty controversial statement that is not really backed up by the realities of recent conflicts. It is the same thing they said before WW1. But that is an entirely different discussion.
And yeah, an invading army could take the stockpiles (a smart defender will destroy them first though). So what? An invading army will also be able to take your treasury and make use of your highways. So should the government stop saving money or building highways? That is a non-argument.
No, you claimed stockpiles would also be useful in wartime and famine. Now you combine war and nuclear war. I was separating war in the case of WW2 with nuclear war. And again, why stockpile for an event in which 99% of the people are going to die with no guarantee those stockpiles will actually survive or be useful to any survivors? WW2 was a terrible example in support of stockpiles as no stockpile would last 5+ years for an entire country anyway.
It doesn't need to last 5 years for an entire country. That is a strawman.
Its not a strawman, its the logical response to the example you said up as follows:
1. I said a famine in a Western country in the foreseeable future is highly unlikely as that would also mean global devastation of food production.
2. You countered by saying there was a famine in the Netherlands, a Western country, just 70 years ago.
3. I countered saying that this was in WW2, a war that will not be repeated for technological reasons. Any stockpile wouldn't have lasted until the fifth year of the war (when the famine occurred) because stocks won't last that long or the Nazis would have taken it to feed Germany and their army. Concluding that a famine in the fifth year of a World War is a terrible example to use as to why there need to be stockpiles.
4. Now you call me saying a stockpile wouldn't last five years in direct reference to your example a strawman.
I never said a stockpile needs to last for years, but in the case of your example it would have seeing as rationing was already quite heavy years before 45.
The famine only occurred in the last year of the war. That is the only year the stockpiles would have been needed. Yes, there was rationing in the other years, but people weren't dying of hunger. Stockpiles are only there for emergencies, so it is a strawman to say they would need to be used every single year of the war.
Disciple of Fate wrote: We discussed the week thing before, suffice to say for modern military equipment with low production rate a winner will become sufficiently clear in the first few weeks.
This is off-topic, so let me just say that reality seems to disagree with you and leave it at that.
Reality can't disagree with me seeing as we have not had a well trained modern equipped military facing off against another in the last few decades. The best examples we have are second rate powers with armies lacking key essentials to conduct a swift decisive war. What in lost in the opening weeks can't be replaced for perhaps months, any sufficiently trained military would immediately capitalize on the advantage of winning the first strike. For example in the Iraq-Iran War, Iran won the equipment battle, but there army was so poorly led and trained it had no way to capitalize on this. Countries like Russia and the US aren't going to fail on capitalizing.
They will. Because in a war against a more or less equal opponent they will have suffered heavy losses of their own, leaving them short on the manpower and materiel they need to capitalise on every opportunity. Sure, the enemy may be in an even worse shape, but that doesn't automatically mean that the side who got the upper hand will be able to swiftly end it. Usually the pattern of a war goes like this: it usually starts with a few small skirmishes where both sides test the other, then there is a short period of very intense conflict where both sides commit their full strength, and then there is a period where the winning side mops up the losing side. Whether the 'mopping up' is over swiftly or lasts very long depends on how decisive the intense period of conflict was and on the will of the defender to continue resisting. If the defender has inflicted enough losses on the attacker the mopping up will be everything but quick. This pattern can be observed in every modern war from WW2 to the war in Iraq. Modern warfare can be over incredibly quickly. But it can also drag on for years.
Disciple of Fate wrote: For famine to occur in wartime there are some pretty crazy terms that need to be met. 1. One side has such an overwhelming advantage it can enforce a famine on its opponent with impunity. 2. The starving opponent with no way of winning in reality as it can't even break the blockade refuses to give up in the face of all reason. 3. We assume any nuclear power would just let itself be starved out instead of pressing the button.
Actually, no. Famine in war usually occurs either because a country has converted most of its industrial power and manpower to wartime production, leaving the agricultural sector short of the people and machines it needs to meet demand, or because fighting on the territory of a country has destroyed a lot of infrastructure. Of course, it can also occur through blockades, which has been a common strategy in war since forever. There is plenty of examples in history why a blockade and starvation would not necessarily lead to surrender. Usually the defenders hope to hold on long enough for reinforcements to arrive so that the blockade may be broken. Your example assumes there will be no reinforcements.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So what would be the point in continuing the war into famine when you obviously are losing? And again, if the enemy has such superiority that they can force famine upon you, why would they not just wait out for the stockpiles to disappear? Its an unrealistic scenario for the usefulness of stockpiles. WW1 is the perfect example actually, as the blockaded caused food shortages, you might say that wouldn't happen if they had stockpiles, but then what if they just continued the war for another year worth of blockading?
You want to continue the war because you are not necessarily losing. Buying yourself another year of time can be huge in war if you are waiting for allies to reinforce you or for more equipment to be made.
Incredibly unrealistic. Your people are starving to death and that is pretty clearly definable as losing. Also no, buying a year isn't huge, because while you have to build up equipment from zero your opponent is just producing more to supplement their already surviving stock with veteran personnel that survived the first round. The amount of equipment would only favor the side who won the first engagement more heavily. As they would have free range to bomb any and all production and military facilities, further reducing output relative to the side already winning. Plus an ally only joining in after a year when the side they support already got crushed seems like a very silly way of conducting international politic, its highly unlikely.
The funny thing about people is that they can be incredibly stubborn, especially in wartime. Starving to death or not, a war isn't over as long as the people still have the will to fight on. As to the rest of what you are saying, have you ever read the history of WW2? It has everything what you just called silly. An army losing the initial exchange and then rebuilding from scratch before actually defeating their opponent? Check. Happened twice actually. An ally joining in after their side got crushed? Check. This is in fact a very common point for allies to join in throughout history. A nation (or nobleman or tribe if you go back further) may be reluctant to join in the war at first, but when they see the side they favour is losing, they are likely to jump in to even the odds and prevent that loss.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And the argument that the enemy could take your food in wartime is not a non-argument. Because in your WW2 example the Nazi's would have done exactly that to any food stockpile and you and I both know that. Food stockpiles in regular wartime have almost no strategic value beyond prolonging the inevitable.
It is a non-argument because the same argument can be made for every single piece of infrastructure a government builds.
It isn't for three reasons. One, all the other infrastructure actually contributes to the overall prosperity and economic growth of the country, hoarding food only costs money. Two, like I said if you are facing famine you're already clearly on the losing side, having a few food stockpiles won't make a difference besides avoiding total defeat for a few months more. Lastly, when the enemy overruns food stockpiles all that effort to build them up is just lost while possibly helping them. Either you already lost the war and these stockpiles just stave off total defeat or you get invaded and the occupier can just use those food stockpiles for their own goals. Its not realistic or comparable to other infrastructure projects that actually serve a purpose beyond the time when the world goes down in a nuclear fireball.
You keep assuming that only the losing side could face famine. That is simply untrue. And even if you are on the losing side, as long as you haven't been totally defeated and your territory taken over by the enemy, those stockpiles might be useful to help keep you in the fight for longer.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yeah but you brought up radiation longevity which is why i mentioned them. Realistically there is no way to provide food for or long term medical supplies for after a global nuclear war. What few people would have survived are now left with an enormousness stock of excess food and medication with a shelf life that won't be that long. So best case scenario is that you feed some survivors while having spend billions if not trillions on supplies that are just going to decay away because 99% of the intended recipients are dead. That is if those stockpiles don't get hit first as tertiary targets. The problem of stockpiling is that you're doing it for a time when society has absolutely collapsed, with possibly no government infrastructure available anymore to get those surviving stockpiles anywhere they are needed. You would need an immense infrastructure just to ensure stockpiles can be accessible on food, an immense infrastructure that will easily collapse with the rest of society. So why not spend those billions or trillions on actual projects that are beneficial in the here and the now, instead of a possible future in which almost everyone is dead anyway. Its just a waste of money.
A government does not need to stockpile food for all of its citizens. The chance of that ever being needed is pretty much non-existent because either lots of people might die, or the catastrophe is not so big that everyone needs food and medical aid. They simply need to have enough stockpiles to feed large groups of people for a certain amount of time. The infrastructure needed to distribute food actually is not very big, especially not if you decentralise it and establish stockpiles on local levels (let's say municipality level).
So if the government is already just betting on the vast majority of its population dying, why even bother with the remaining survivors?
If that is your argument, then I can rest my case. No offense, but that comes across to me as sounding quite psychopathic. Why bother with the remaining survivors? Well, maybe because some people actually value human life and want so save as much people as possible?
Not really, its just being realistic. If you really want to save lives and as much people as possible there are far better things to invest money in in the here and now than hoping some people will survive a nuclear war that might never come.
And besides, if you really are concerned with saving as many people as possible you should be advocating for huge incredibly expensive bunker projects and such. But cost is always a limiting factor, and money spend on food stockpiles will likely just represent money wasted. That money can do far more good for more people in the here and now in my opinion.
Disciple of Fate wrote: What if more people survive than expected? Etc etc. Its a very expensive project that might never pay off even in the event of nuclear war. If you start stockpiles you also realistically would start investing in people surviving. But then how many would you plan for in that case etc. Its possible, but likely just enormously wasteful.
Yes, it might be wasteful. But it might also prove to be invaluable. Like with the Delta Works, it is a consideration the government needs to make. How much money do we spend on protection from potential future disasters vs things that will be more immediately useful. I for one, am glad the Dutch government decided to build the Delta Works, and would also be glad if they took more measures to protect against other potential future disasters such as a nuclear war.
Seeing as how we have had dozens of major floods in the last few centuries and exactly zero nuclear wars in the Netherlands there is a significant difference between the Delta Works and nuclear survival expenses. Like I said, why not spend trillions on building a space ship in case of an asteroid strike? There are so many things that could end civilization as we know it yet preparing for them all would bankrupt society. Money is better spent elsewhere than as some sort of possibly useful feature for the 1% who actually survived.
Like a flood, a nuclear war is not all that unlikely though. There is a difference between preparing for absolutely everything and preparing for actually plausible future threats, like that once in a 100,000 years flood or a nuclear war. Do you really think the chances of a nuclear war are so much lower than a one in a 10,000 year flood?
And yes. Apart from stockpiles we would also need shelters and bunkers. We would need them to store the stockpiles and to actually make sure there will be people to use the stockpile. It does represent a cost, of course, but the costs could be spread out over many years. And wanting to spend everything on the here and now is just short-sighted. Being prepared for the future is important. We want to ensure there will be a future, even in case of nuclear war.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also taking Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors into accounts is a bit misleading, because it was such a localized and isolated event. In the case of a global event almost everything the survivors will come into contact with will be contaminated, even the soil itself will be contaminated. So besides there being few survivors, now you're dealing with background radiation and genetic defects as a result that will likely have far reaching consequences on the overall future of the human race (miscarriage being the major one due to exposure). Plus that is taking into account that whoever survives will even have the capabilities to keep themselves alive for long enough to even start another generation.
Uh, no. Not everything will be contaminated. Contamination will only happen in the neighborhood of nuclear detonations. Nuclear detonations are only going to be at major population centres and military targets. Beyond that, background radiation will quickly decay to levels that aren't of much concern anymore. Rural areas won't get much contamination at all. Global background radiation would rise to levels that likely might be very concerning for us in a normal situation, but as I already said, having a somewhat higher risk of cancer or a somewhat higher chance that your future children will get genetic defects isn't really a concern if you just survived a nuclear war. You will be plenty happy you still have a life expectancy and that you still can get kids. As for keeping people alive long enough to establish a next generation, that is where the stockpiles come in again. A war would be very disruptive to normal food supplies, and stockpiles could keep people alive long enough until new food supplies are established.
Not really, contamination can spread over hundreds of kilometers, just look at contamination maps of Chernobyl or Fukushima. It depends on the weapon in question of course, but spread patterns depending on conditions can be quite significant. While those doses aren't deadly as is, they do contaminate food and water to a sufficient degree.
None of that is lethal, so none of that will be of concern in a nuclear war. Yes, there will be contamination, but if you just survived a nuclear war I doubt you will care about contaminated food killing you 60 years down the road when the alternative is a lack of food killing you in 2 weeks.
That depends on the severity of the buildup of contamination in the produce and how it builds up in the human body. Its a significant risk to any surviving population that we don't know much about. And again distribution comes in, many people might not even be able to reach those stockpiles even if they prove useful. But stockpiles run out and food production needs to take over, if those foodstuffs are severely contaminated they might kill in significantly less than 60 years. If everybody dies from contamination 5 years after the stockpile runs out that isn't helpful either. Problematically there isn't a lot of research on the viability of food production, one of the issues that needs resolving beforehand preferably.
The foodstuff isn't going to be contaminated because you keep it in nuclear shelters. Distribution isn't going to be a problem because those shelters could be built on a local level.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also you keep bringing in stockpiles for next generations, but realistically the shelf life for most medicine and food if it survives at all will be a decade, a bit more if your lucky. Its not going to feed your grand kids. Plus what kind of medication and how would you use it without doctors? Its great for people who live close by to such a stockpile, but distribution is going to be a serious issue. Plus what if those people have zero know how on how to get reliable food production started. Even most farmers nowadays are dependent on seeds provided by companies.
Like all infrastructure, stockpiles would need to be maintained. And no, after a nuclear war those stockpiles won't last long enough to feed your grandkids, but that isn't needed. A stockpile would just need to be able to provide for the people living in the local area to survive the initial period of chaos that would follow a nuclear strike, until the government can restore control and get a normal food supply running again. A nuclear war isn't going to destroy every single thing on earth. There will still be doctors, farms, seeds and everything. If you ever set foot outside of a city, you will notice that infrastructure for food production tends to be outside of cities. So unless someone were stupid enough to aim nukes at farmland instead of cities, food is not going to be an issue in the "post-apocalypse". At least, not in a place like Europe where all you need to do to get food is to put a seed in the ground and wait for a bit. Less fertile areas that are largely dependent on food import would suffer more.
Of course stockpiles need to be maintained, which is another expensive burden to creating them in the first place. But after the bombs drop all those people with the required knowledge of what is in a stockpile and what it does or even where it is might be dead.
You keep bringing up the government and normal food supply, but there is absolutely no guarantee at all that the government would survive in the first place (like in the Netherlands) or that restarting a normal food supply is even possible (with a host of possible problems). It won't destroy everything of course, but it would destroy enough. Those farmers are dependent on cities and infrastructure too. Farmers with animals depend on the existing infrastructure for animal food. Farmers with crops depend on others for seeds and fertilizer. Together they depend on the world for power, water, spare parts, fuel etc etc. Access to all those things will be lost. How easy is it to go back 200 years for those farmers? Same for doctors, they would lose all kinds of specialized equipment and locations, most dedicated medical facilities are located in urban areas. Its not just a matter of picking up the pieces in the countryside, losing the urban areas and the subsequent disruption of absolutely everything will have far reaching consequences they might not be able to overcome.
"All you need to do is put a seed in the ground" is a gross overstatement. Its more complicated than that with growing seasons, climate conditions and the fact that there is almost no crop diversity for a good part of modern farmers anymore. There is a host of issues with farming that people would just not be able to overcome without the knowhow. It might be overcome, but the questions is how many would overcome it?
Of course the government will survive. Even in the Netherlands the government has contingency plans for nuclear war and a lot of bunkers to hide in. Of all things, governments are in fact probably most likely to survive nuclear wars.
And farmers are only dependent on all that infrastructure because they produce crops for profit in an incredibly intensive manner. Without all that infrastructure they can still produce crops, just less and they won't be able to sell on the international market. But neither of that would be needed in the direct aftermath of a nuclear war. All that would be needed would be the farmland and a basic stock of crops and animals to start with. And yeah, farming is more complicated than just putting things in the ground, but it is not exactly knowledge that is rare, difficult or hard to come by. Essentially, the world would be thrown 200 years back yes. But we could survive 200 years ago, and the way how people survived back then isn't exactly arcane, secret knowledge. It would take effort for us to adapt, but it would be done.
You seem to assume that a nuclear war would be the end of the world, when there are no grounds to assume such.
Disciple of Fate wrote: A. Smart is very subjective though, there are a lot of smart things that the government should invest in. Certainly there are more pressing matters to invest in. There are issues that will affect the full 100% of us in the future now, not issues that will affect the 1% when there no longer really is a future.
B. Actually, humans as in Homo Sapiens have no definitive proof of being around Europe for tens of thousands of years, its just assumed as no real definitive proof has been found except at the very edges . Anyway, these people survived because they were all aimed at survival under those conditions or farmers who provided for themselves. Saying people have survived thousands of years is like dropping a call center employee in the middle of the Amazon and going "its fine, people have been living here for thousands of years". The absolute vast majority of the Western population has no clue how to survive outside of our urbanized life, they don't know how to hunt or grow crops, no clue what is edible in the wild etc etc. And as I said above, we don't know if farmers could just pick up the pieces, let alone produce enough food to feed a surviving population.
C. Very debatable, any surviving government likely wouldn't have the capacity to actually control anyone like the national government did simply because they don't have any expertise in it. Setting up a new government won't make it a continuation of the old one, which is the key in some sense, because most governments see little in investing in a future they are no longer in. Still any shell government left will likely lack the resources, skilled people or expertise to actually get much done in the first few years or even decades. Warning times for a nuclear strike are incredibly short, in the Netherlands we might be talking about minutes at most, too late for most government personnel.
A. What is smart or not is indeed subjective.
B. As an archaeologist I can tell you there is LOADS of evidence for the presence of H. Sapiens in Europe over the past 10,000 years and even far longer back. H. Sapiens was already very widespread in Europe before 40,000 years ago, which is about the time H. Neanderthalensis disappeared (and we know European H. Sapiens had a lot of interactions and interbreeding with Neanderthals, because we can trace that back in the DNA of present-day European populations of H. Sapiens). Anyway, the call center employee in the Amazon isn't going to survive when on his own. But he won't be on his own. Not everyone knows how to hunt and gather or grow crops, but there are plenty of people that do. And one of the big reasons for our incredible success as a species is our unique capability to transfer information across individuals, groups and generations. That call center employee in the Amazon will survive because there will be people teaching him how to do so. And luckily for us, most environments aren't even nearly as hostile as the Amazon.
C. Any surviving government would be severely reduced in capability, yes. But they won't need the same kind of capability they needed before the strike. Directly after the strike, their priorities should be solely the establishment of communication with survivors, and making sure survivors have access to shelter, food and water. Things that would be easily do-able if the government planned ahead for this.
Iron_Captain wrote: As to shelters in metro networks, that actually solves a lot of the problems you mention. People will be able to travel through the tunnels to outside of the city, beyond the most heavily destroyed and irradiated areas. As to what you when you exit? Yeah, that is where those stockpiles would be handy. It would allow people to survive until food supplies have been restored, which would be the main priority of the government. Most infrastructure for the production of food exists in rural areas, so in the long term food should not be too much of an issue. It is really only the direct aftermath of the war that would be problematic, and that is why those stockpiles are so essential.
True, but most of those metro networks don't leave the cities, so people are still stuck in the city (depends on the amount of hits too). As for food supplies being restored, again how? Most Western agriculture is dependent on outside sources for parts, fuel, seeds etc. That whole system is going to break down and those farmers might not even be around anymore. How would you just restore food supplies with a large group of people who have no clue how? The government won't survive either in many cases, because they are in prime targets to hit and infrastructure collapse will prevent any designated survivors to have massive problems restoring anything if at all possible. Food stockpiles being useful are a very best case scenario. Sure you can do it, but its going to be incredibly expensive.
Metro networks that were designed as nuclear shelters do, and even those that do not often do lead to the outskirts of a city that would be unlikely to get hit very hard. As to how to restore food supplies? It is simple. The same way you rebuild any country after a destructive war. You will have lots of people that are left without job. You can use that manpower to compensate for machines that break down until international trade and infrastructure start coming back up again. Who knows, it might even actually boost the economy overall in the long term, just like with Germany or Japan after WW2.
Yes purpose build for sure, but not all purpose build have had that much thought put into it, it depends on the country.
Its not simple, this is far more devastating than a destructive war. Death toll alone would far outstrip the most destructive war in human history. Countries had help rebuilding after those destructive wars or had significant undamaged industrialized parts. That's highly unlikely to be the case after an all out nuclear exchange. Also lots of people? The urbanization rate in the West is 80+ percent. So best case scenario is that no more than 4/5ths of your population will die. Plus with the total collapse of infrastructure there is no immediate way to concentrate all those people, which might be a bad idea anyway food wise. It would take decades to rebuild a country after such an event and that would be the most optimistic expectation.
"it might even actually boost the economy overall in the long term"? You are wildly optimistic about this. There won't be much of an economy left after 80+ percent of your population as well as the vast majority of your economic centers get vaporized. Your veering into blind optimism on that part.
It would take decades, yes. But it could be done. The world would never be the same of course. As you say, the death toll would be massive. Countries after the war would be much smaller (in terms of population) and much more decentralised (because population centers were destroyed). But they would still be there. 1/5th of the population is still a lot of people. I suppose boosting the economy would be optimistic, given the fact that the economy after the war would be vastly smaller than before. But there would still be an economy, and lots of work to do for everyone.
A country like Belarus had 1/3rd of its population killed in WW2, and all of its infrastructure destroyed. It got next to no help to rebuild because it was part of the Soviet Union so the West did not want to help, and it got little help from the other parts of the Soviet Union because they were busy rebuilding their own stuff. Yet Belarus rebuilt itself. The aftermath of a nuclear war would look a lot like that, but on a smaller scale because there'd be less people left. Make no mistake, a nuclear war would be the end of the world as we know it. But it would not be the end of the world.
You know how there's still parts of Sweden where the flora and fauna is inedible by humans because of Chernobyl? That was more than 30 years ago halfway across Europe from here. This idea that the fallout isn't going to be so bad is kinda dangerous.
A country like Belarus had 1/3rd of its population killed in WW2, and all of its infrastructure destroyed. It got next to no help to rebuild because it was part of the Soviet Union so the West did not want to help
BS. Stalin refused offers of help. The Marshall plan explicitly offered to help the Soviet Union too; Stalin declined.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You know how there's still parts of Sweden where the flora and fauna is inedible by humans because of Chernobyl? That was more than 30 years ago halfway across Europe from here. This idea that the fallout isn't going to be so bad is kinda dangerous.
You're confusing health warnings saying "You shouldn't eat this stuff" as meaning they are lethal to consume. If you ate some of those plants or animals which are still contaminated by Chernobyl you'd survive. You'll probably come down with cancer in 20-40 years if you made a habit of it, but you could eat it and survive for a length of time which I would classify as being acceptable considering you're living in a post-apocalyptic world. Standards would be a bit low in that situation.
When we're talking about the long term survival of the human species... Yeah, its definitely in the "Not so bad" category. "Not so bad" doesn't mean no ill effects whatsoever. It means we could survive through it collectively.
Disciple of Fate wrote: WW2 is both the worst and the best example to prove/disprove the stockpile viability idea. Worst because a war lasting 5 years on a European scale like WW2 is incredibly unlikely now that so many major players have nuclear weapons, the time scale being completely unrealistic. The best because exactly, there was famine, in the 5th year of the war, no stockpile is going to last years. Look at the strategic oil stockpiles of the US for example, they represent just 5 months of imports. Most wars are neither as intensive or as long lasting as WW2 and when we talk about modern militaries (i.e. of rich countries who could afford to actually stockpile) fighting in a equipment capacity will be decided upon in weeks at best. Then you have to take into account that if it actually comes to an invasion your stockpiles are either going to be overrun or destroyed. What good would have food stockpiles had done in WW2 when the Nazi's could and did just take every scrap of food available in places? Like I said, places such as countries in Africa that really need food stockpiles are just to poor to afford them. The West really has no need for them as any war that would lead to actual famine is either going to end up in a nuclear exchange or surrender, as its become incredibly one sided for famine to take hold.
A full-out nuclear war is going to be many more times as intensive as WW2 was. All of the destruction of 5 years of WW2 could be done in a matter of minutes with nuclear weapons. So of course there will be famine.
Also, saying that fighting between modern militaries will be over in weeks at best is making a pretty controversial statement that is not really backed up by the realities of recent conflicts. It is the same thing they said before WW1. But that is an entirely different discussion.
And yeah, an invading army could take the stockpiles (a smart defender will destroy them first though). So what? An invading army will also be able to take your treasury and make use of your highways. So should the government stop saving money or building highways? That is a non-argument.
No, you claimed stockpiles would also be useful in wartime and famine. Now you combine war and nuclear war. I was separating war in the case of WW2 with nuclear war. And again, why stockpile for an event in which 99% of the people are going to die with no guarantee those stockpiles will actually survive or be useful to any survivors? WW2 was a terrible example in support of stockpiles as no stockpile would last 5+ years for an entire country anyway.
It doesn't need to last 5 years for an entire country. That is a strawman.
Its not a strawman, its the logical response to the example you said up as follows:
1. I said a famine in a Western country in the foreseeable future is highly unlikely as that would also mean global devastation of food production.
2. You countered by saying there was a famine in the Netherlands, a Western country, just 70 years ago.
3. I countered saying that this was in WW2, a war that will not be repeated for technological reasons. Any stockpile wouldn't have lasted until the fifth year of the war (when the famine occurred) because stocks won't last that long or the Nazis would have taken it to feed Germany and their army. Concluding that a famine in the fifth year of a World War is a terrible example to use as to why there need to be stockpiles.
4. Now you call me saying a stockpile wouldn't last five years in direct reference to your example a strawman.
I never said a stockpile needs to last for years, but in the case of your example it would have seeing as rationing was already quite heavy years before 45.
The famine only occurred in the last year of the war. That is the only year the stockpiles would have been needed. Yes, there was rationing in the other years, but people weren't dying of hunger. Stockpiles are only there for emergencies, so it is a strawman to say they would need to be used every single year of the war.
Disciple of Fate wrote: We discussed the week thing before, suffice to say for modern military equipment with low production rate a winner will become sufficiently clear in the first few weeks.
This is off-topic, so let me just say that reality seems to disagree with you and leave it at that.
Reality can't disagree with me seeing as we have not had a well trained modern equipped military facing off against another in the last few decades. The best examples we have are second rate powers with armies lacking key essentials to conduct a swift decisive war. What in lost in the opening weeks can't be replaced for perhaps months, any sufficiently trained military would immediately capitalize on the advantage of winning the first strike. For example in the Iraq-Iran War, Iran won the equipment battle, but there army was so poorly led and trained it had no way to capitalize on this. Countries like Russia and the US aren't going to fail on capitalizing.
They will. Because in a war against a more or less equal opponent they will have suffered heavy losses of their own, leaving them short on the manpower and materiel they need to capitalise on every opportunity. Sure, the enemy may be in an even worse shape, but that doesn't automatically mean that the side who got the upper hand will be able to swiftly end it. Usually the pattern of a war goes like this: it usually starts with a few small skirmishes where both sides test the other, then there is a short period of very intense conflict where both sides commit their full strength, and then there is a period where the winning side mops up the losing side. Whether the 'mopping up' is over swiftly or lasts very long depends on how decisive the intense period of conflict was and on the will of the defender to continue resisting. If the defender has inflicted enough losses on the attacker the mopping up will be everything but quick. This pattern can be observed in every modern war from WW2 to the war in Iraq. Modern warfare can be over incredibly quickly. But it can also drag on for years.
Disciple of Fate wrote: For famine to occur in wartime there are some pretty crazy terms that need to be met. 1. One side has such an overwhelming advantage it can enforce a famine on its opponent with impunity. 2. The starving opponent with no way of winning in reality as it can't even break the blockade refuses to give up in the face of all reason. 3. We assume any nuclear power would just let itself be starved out instead of pressing the button.
Actually, no. Famine in war usually occurs either because a country has converted most of its industrial power and manpower to wartime production, leaving the agricultural sector short of the people and machines it needs to meet demand, or because fighting on the territory of a country has destroyed a lot of infrastructure. Of course, it can also occur through blockades, which has been a common strategy in war since forever. There is plenty of examples in history why a blockade and starvation would not necessarily lead to surrender. Usually the defenders hope to hold on long enough for reinforcements to arrive so that the blockade may be broken. Your example assumes there will be no reinforcements.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So what would be the point in continuing the war into famine when you obviously are losing? And again, if the enemy has such superiority that they can force famine upon you, why would they not just wait out for the stockpiles to disappear? Its an unrealistic scenario for the usefulness of stockpiles. WW1 is the perfect example actually, as the blockaded caused food shortages, you might say that wouldn't happen if they had stockpiles, but then what if they just continued the war for another year worth of blockading?
You want to continue the war because you are not necessarily losing. Buying yourself another year of time can be huge in war if you are waiting for allies to reinforce you or for more equipment to be made.
Incredibly unrealistic. Your people are starving to death and that is pretty clearly definable as losing. Also no, buying a year isn't huge, because while you have to build up equipment from zero your opponent is just producing more to supplement their already surviving stock with veteran personnel that survived the first round. The amount of equipment would only favor the side who won the first engagement more heavily. As they would have free range to bomb any and all production and military facilities, further reducing output relative to the side already winning. Plus an ally only joining in after a year when the side they support already got crushed seems like a very silly way of conducting international politic, its highly unlikely.
The funny thing about people is that they can be incredibly stubborn, especially in wartime. Starving to death or not, a war isn't over as long as the people still have the will to fight on. As to the rest of what you are saying, have you ever read the history of WW2? It has everything what you just called silly. An army losing the initial exchange and then rebuilding from scratch before actually defeating their opponent? Check. Happened twice actually. An ally joining in after their side got crushed? Check. This is in fact a very common point for allies to join in throughout history. A nation (or nobleman or tribe if you go back further) may be reluctant to join in the war at first, but when they see the side they favour is losing, they are likely to jump in to even the odds and prevent that loss.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And the argument that the enemy could take your food in wartime is not a non-argument. Because in your WW2 example the Nazi's would have done exactly that to any food stockpile and you and I both know that. Food stockpiles in regular wartime have almost no strategic value beyond prolonging the inevitable.
It is a non-argument because the same argument can be made for every single piece of infrastructure a government builds.
It isn't for three reasons. One, all the other infrastructure actually contributes to the overall prosperity and economic growth of the country, hoarding food only costs money. Two, like I said if you are facing famine you're already clearly on the losing side, having a few food stockpiles won't make a difference besides avoiding total defeat for a few months more. Lastly, when the enemy overruns food stockpiles all that effort to build them up is just lost while possibly helping them. Either you already lost the war and these stockpiles just stave off total defeat or you get invaded and the occupier can just use those food stockpiles for their own goals. Its not realistic or comparable to other infrastructure projects that actually serve a purpose beyond the time when the world goes down in a nuclear fireball.
You keep assuming that only the losing side could face famine. That is simply untrue. And even if you are on the losing side, as long as you haven't been totally defeated and your territory taken over by the enemy, those stockpiles might be useful to help keep you in the fight for longer.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Yeah but you brought up radiation longevity which is why i mentioned them. Realistically there is no way to provide food for or long term medical supplies for after a global nuclear war. What few people would have survived are now left with an enormousness stock of excess food and medication with a shelf life that won't be that long. So best case scenario is that you feed some survivors while having spend billions if not trillions on supplies that are just going to decay away because 99% of the intended recipients are dead. That is if those stockpiles don't get hit first as tertiary targets. The problem of stockpiling is that you're doing it for a time when society has absolutely collapsed, with possibly no government infrastructure available anymore to get those surviving stockpiles anywhere they are needed. You would need an immense infrastructure just to ensure stockpiles can be accessible on food, an immense infrastructure that will easily collapse with the rest of society. So why not spend those billions or trillions on actual projects that are beneficial in the here and the now, instead of a possible future in which almost everyone is dead anyway. Its just a waste of money.
A government does not need to stockpile food for all of its citizens. The chance of that ever being needed is pretty much non-existent because either lots of people might die, or the catastrophe is not so big that everyone needs food and medical aid. They simply need to have enough stockpiles to feed large groups of people for a certain amount of time. The infrastructure needed to distribute food actually is not very big, especially not if you decentralise it and establish stockpiles on local levels (let's say municipality level).
So if the government is already just betting on the vast majority of its population dying, why even bother with the remaining survivors?
If that is your argument, then I can rest my case. No offense, but that comes across to me as sounding quite psychopathic. Why bother with the remaining survivors? Well, maybe because some people actually value human life and want so save as much people as possible?
Not really, its just being realistic. If you really want to save lives and as much people as possible there are far better things to invest money in in the here and now than hoping some people will survive a nuclear war that might never come.
And besides, if you really are concerned with saving as many people as possible you should be advocating for huge incredibly expensive bunker projects and such. But cost is always a limiting factor, and money spend on food stockpiles will likely just represent money wasted. That money can do far more good for more people in the here and now in my opinion.
Disciple of Fate wrote: What if more people survive than expected? Etc etc. Its a very expensive project that might never pay off even in the event of nuclear war. If you start stockpiles you also realistically would start investing in people surviving. But then how many would you plan for in that case etc. Its possible, but likely just enormously wasteful.
Yes, it might be wasteful. But it might also prove to be invaluable. Like with the Delta Works, it is a consideration the government needs to make. How much money do we spend on protection from potential future disasters vs things that will be more immediately useful. I for one, am glad the Dutch government decided to build the Delta Works, and would also be glad if they took more measures to protect against other potential future disasters such as a nuclear war.
Seeing as how we have had dozens of major floods in the last few centuries and exactly zero nuclear wars in the Netherlands there is a significant difference between the Delta Works and nuclear survival expenses. Like I said, why not spend trillions on building a space ship in case of an asteroid strike? There are so many things that could end civilization as we know it yet preparing for them all would bankrupt society. Money is better spent elsewhere than as some sort of possibly useful feature for the 1% who actually survived.
Like a flood, a nuclear war is not all that unlikely though. There is a difference between preparing for absolutely everything and preparing for actually plausible future threats, like that once in a 100,000 years flood or a nuclear war. Do you really think the chances of a nuclear war are so much lower than a one in a 10,000 year flood?
And yes. Apart from stockpiles we would also need shelters and bunkers. We would need them to store the stockpiles and to actually make sure there will be people to use the stockpile. It does represent a cost, of course, but the costs could be spread out over many years. And wanting to spend everything on the here and now is just short-sighted. Being prepared for the future is important. We want to ensure there will be a future, even in case of nuclear war.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also taking Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors into accounts is a bit misleading, because it was such a localized and isolated event. In the case of a global event almost everything the survivors will come into contact with will be contaminated, even the soil itself will be contaminated. So besides there being few survivors, now you're dealing with background radiation and genetic defects as a result that will likely have far reaching consequences on the overall future of the human race (miscarriage being the major one due to exposure). Plus that is taking into account that whoever survives will even have the capabilities to keep themselves alive for long enough to even start another generation.
Uh, no. Not everything will be contaminated. Contamination will only happen in the neighborhood of nuclear detonations. Nuclear detonations are only going to be at major population centres and military targets. Beyond that, background radiation will quickly decay to levels that aren't of much concern anymore. Rural areas won't get much contamination at all. Global background radiation would rise to levels that likely might be very concerning for us in a normal situation, but as I already said, having a somewhat higher risk of cancer or a somewhat higher chance that your future children will get genetic defects isn't really a concern if you just survived a nuclear war. You will be plenty happy you still have a life expectancy and that you still can get kids. As for keeping people alive long enough to establish a next generation, that is where the stockpiles come in again. A war would be very disruptive to normal food supplies, and stockpiles could keep people alive long enough until new food supplies are established.
Not really, contamination can spread over hundreds of kilometers, just look at contamination maps of Chernobyl or Fukushima. It depends on the weapon in question of course, but spread patterns depending on conditions can be quite significant. While those doses aren't deadly as is, they do contaminate food and water to a sufficient degree.
None of that is lethal, so none of that will be of concern in a nuclear war. Yes, there will be contamination, but if you just survived a nuclear war I doubt you will care about contaminated food killing you 60 years down the road when the alternative is a lack of food killing you in 2 weeks.
That depends on the severity of the buildup of contamination in the produce and how it builds up in the human body. Its a significant risk to any surviving population that we don't know much about. And again distribution comes in, many people might not even be able to reach those stockpiles even if they prove useful. But stockpiles run out and food production needs to take over, if those foodstuffs are severely contaminated they might kill in significantly less than 60 years. If everybody dies from contamination 5 years after the stockpile runs out that isn't helpful either. Problematically there isn't a lot of research on the viability of food production, one of the issues that needs resolving beforehand preferably.
The foodstuff isn't going to be contaminated because you keep it in nuclear shelters. Distribution isn't going to be a problem because those shelters could be built on a local level.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Also you keep bringing in stockpiles for next generations, but realistically the shelf life for most medicine and food if it survives at all will be a decade, a bit more if your lucky. Its not going to feed your grand kids. Plus what kind of medication and how would you use it without doctors? Its great for people who live close by to such a stockpile, but distribution is going to be a serious issue. Plus what if those people have zero know how on how to get reliable food production started. Even most farmers nowadays are dependent on seeds provided by companies.
Like all infrastructure, stockpiles would need to be maintained. And no, after a nuclear war those stockpiles won't last long enough to feed your grandkids, but that isn't needed. A stockpile would just need to be able to provide for the people living in the local area to survive the initial period of chaos that would follow a nuclear strike, until the government can restore control and get a normal food supply running again. A nuclear war isn't going to destroy every single thing on earth. There will still be doctors, farms, seeds and everything. If you ever set foot outside of a city, you will notice that infrastructure for food production tends to be outside of cities. So unless someone were stupid enough to aim nukes at farmland instead of cities, food is not going to be an issue in the "post-apocalypse". At least, not in a place like Europe where all you need to do to get food is to put a seed in the ground and wait for a bit. Less fertile areas that are largely dependent on food import would suffer more.
Of course stockpiles need to be maintained, which is another expensive burden to creating them in the first place. But after the bombs drop all those people with the required knowledge of what is in a stockpile and what it does or even where it is might be dead.
You keep bringing up the government and normal food supply, but there is absolutely no guarantee at all that the government would survive in the first place (like in the Netherlands) or that restarting a normal food supply is even possible (with a host of possible problems). It won't destroy everything of course, but it would destroy enough. Those farmers are dependent on cities and infrastructure too. Farmers with animals depend on the existing infrastructure for animal food. Farmers with crops depend on others for seeds and fertilizer. Together they depend on the world for power, water, spare parts, fuel etc etc. Access to all those things will be lost. How easy is it to go back 200 years for those farmers? Same for doctors, they would lose all kinds of specialized equipment and locations, most dedicated medical facilities are located in urban areas. Its not just a matter of picking up the pieces in the countryside, losing the urban areas and the subsequent disruption of absolutely everything will have far reaching consequences they might not be able to overcome.
"All you need to do is put a seed in the ground" is a gross overstatement. Its more complicated than that with growing seasons, climate conditions and the fact that there is almost no crop diversity for a good part of modern farmers anymore. There is a host of issues with farming that people would just not be able to overcome without the knowhow. It might be overcome, but the questions is how many would overcome it?
Of course the government will survive. Even in the Netherlands the government has contingency plans for nuclear war and a lot of bunkers to hide in. Of all things, governments are in fact probably most likely to survive nuclear wars.
And farmers are only dependent on all that infrastructure because they produce crops for profit in an incredibly intensive manner. Without all that infrastructure they can still produce crops, just less and they won't be able to sell on the international market. But neither of that would be needed in the direct aftermath of a nuclear war. All that would be needed would be the farmland and a basic stock of crops and animals to start with. And yeah, farming is more complicated than just putting things in the ground, but it is not exactly knowledge that is rare, difficult or hard to come by. Essentially, the world would be thrown 200 years back yes. But we could survive 200 years ago, and the way how people survived back then isn't exactly arcane, secret knowledge. It would take effort for us to adapt, but it would be done.
You seem to assume that a nuclear war would be the end of the world, when there are no grounds to assume such.
Disciple of Fate wrote: A. Smart is very subjective though, there are a lot of smart things that the government should invest in. Certainly there are more pressing matters to invest in. There are issues that will affect the full 100% of us in the future now, not issues that will affect the 1% when there no longer really is a future.
B. Actually, humans as in Homo Sapiens have no definitive proof of being around Europe for tens of thousands of years, its just assumed as no real definitive proof has been found except at the very edges . Anyway, these people survived because they were all aimed at survival under those conditions or farmers who provided for themselves. Saying people have survived thousands of years is like dropping a call center employee in the middle of the Amazon and going "its fine, people have been living here for thousands of years". The absolute vast majority of the Western population has no clue how to survive outside of our urbanized life, they don't know how to hunt or grow crops, no clue what is edible in the wild etc etc. And as I said above, we don't know if farmers could just pick up the pieces, let alone produce enough food to feed a surviving population.
C. Very debatable, any surviving government likely wouldn't have the capacity to actually control anyone like the national government did simply because they don't have any expertise in it. Setting up a new government won't make it a continuation of the old one, which is the key in some sense, because most governments see little in investing in a future they are no longer in. Still any shell government left will likely lack the resources, skilled people or expertise to actually get much done in the first few years or even decades. Warning times for a nuclear strike are incredibly short, in the Netherlands we might be talking about minutes at most, too late for most government personnel.
A. What is smart or not is indeed subjective.
B. As an archaeologist I can tell you there is LOADS of evidence for the presence of H. Sapiens in Europe over the past 10,000 years and even far longer back. H. Sapiens was already very widespread in Europe before 40,000 years ago, which is about the time H. Neanderthalensis disappeared (and we know European H. Sapiens had a lot of interactions and interbreeding with Neanderthals, because we can trace that back in the DNA of present-day European populations of H. Sapiens). Anyway, the call center employee in the Amazon isn't going to survive when on his own. But he won't be on his own. Not everyone knows how to hunt and gather or grow crops, but there are plenty of people that do. And one of the big reasons for our incredible success as a species is our unique capability to transfer information across individuals, groups and generations. That call center employee in the Amazon will survive because there will be people teaching him how to do so. And luckily for us, most environments aren't even nearly as hostile as the Amazon.
C. Any surviving government would be severely reduced in capability, yes. But they won't need the same kind of capability they needed before the strike. Directly after the strike, their priorities should be solely the establishment of communication with survivors, and making sure survivors have access to shelter, food and water. Things that would be easily do-able if the government planned ahead for this.
Iron_Captain wrote: As to shelters in metro networks, that actually solves a lot of the problems you mention. People will be able to travel through the tunnels to outside of the city, beyond the most heavily destroyed and irradiated areas. As to what you when you exit? Yeah, that is where those stockpiles would be handy. It would allow people to survive until food supplies have been restored, which would be the main priority of the government. Most infrastructure for the production of food exists in rural areas, so in the long term food should not be too much of an issue. It is really only the direct aftermath of the war that would be problematic, and that is why those stockpiles are so essential.
True, but most of those metro networks don't leave the cities, so people are still stuck in the city (depends on the amount of hits too). As for food supplies being restored, again how? Most Western agriculture is dependent on outside sources for parts, fuel, seeds etc. That whole system is going to break down and those farmers might not even be around anymore. How would you just restore food supplies with a large group of people who have no clue how? The government won't survive either in many cases, because they are in prime targets to hit and infrastructure collapse will prevent any designated survivors to have massive problems restoring anything if at all possible. Food stockpiles being useful are a very best case scenario. Sure you can do it, but its going to be incredibly expensive.
Metro networks that were designed as nuclear shelters do, and even those that do not often do lead to the outskirts of a city that would be unlikely to get hit very hard. As to how to restore food supplies? It is simple. The same way you rebuild any country after a destructive war. You will have lots of people that are left without job. You can use that manpower to compensate for machines that break down until international trade and infrastructure start coming back up again. Who knows, it might even actually boost the economy overall in the long term, just like with Germany or Japan after WW2.
Yes purpose build for sure, but not all purpose build have had that much thought put into it, it depends on the country.
Its not simple, this is far more devastating than a destructive war. Death toll alone would far outstrip the most destructive war in human history. Countries had help rebuilding after those destructive wars or had significant undamaged industrialized parts. That's highly unlikely to be the case after an all out nuclear exchange. Also lots of people? The urbanization rate in the West is 80+ percent. So best case scenario is that no more than 4/5ths of your population will die. Plus with the total collapse of infrastructure there is no immediate way to concentrate all those people, which might be a bad idea anyway food wise. It would take decades to rebuild a country after such an event and that would be the most optimistic expectation.
"it might even actually boost the economy overall in the long term"? You are wildly optimistic about this. There won't be much of an economy left after 80+ percent of your population as well as the vast majority of your economic centers get vaporized. Your veering into blind optimism on that part.
It would take decades, yes. But it could be done. The world would never be the same of course. As you say, the death toll would be massive. Countries after the war would be much smaller (in terms of population) and much more decentralised (because population centers were destroyed). But they would still be there. 1/5th of the population is still a lot of people. I suppose boosting the economy would be optimistic, given the fact that the economy after the war would be vastly smaller than before. But there would still be an economy, and lots of work to do for everyone.
A country like Belarus had 1/3rd of its population killed in WW2, and all of its infrastructure destroyed. It got next to no help to rebuild because it was part of the Soviet Union so the West did not want to help, and it got little help from the other parts of the Soviet Union because they were busy rebuilding their own stuff. Yet Belarus rebuilt itself. The aftermath of a nuclear war would look a lot like that, but on a smaller scale because there'd be less people left. Make no mistake, a nuclear war would be the end of the world as we know it. But it would not be the end of the world.
I'm not going to bother with very long responss as this is going increasingly in circles so I will just make short comments on each section quickly:
- Those stockpiles would have long been taken by the Germans in 1945. They were already starving civilians on a large scale in 1941 in the East and taking everything not nailed down in Western and Eastern Europe. The expectation that food stockpiles would have helped is just unrealistic.
- We have seen decisive knockout punches in the opening phases of almost every recent war involving a major power. Applying overwhelming force as quickly as possible is the key to winning the opening phase. Skirmishing first gives away the advantage of a knockout punch. Also it was never about the winning side quickly ending it. Its about the losing side's highly unlikely chance to recover and regroup with modern equipment. Sure the losing side could drag it out, but realistically its not going anywhere. Both Iraq wars were over the moment they began. Iran-Iraq War has serious issues as a template of a modern war between well trained armies. Plus even taking into account WW1 and 2, there was no relief for the losing side, once those blockades were set up it was steadily downhill for the Central and Axis powers.
- Bringing up stubborn and WW2 is unrealistic in todays world. Equipment production isn't possible on such a massive scale anymore. Using WW2 as a template for what a modern war looks like isn't relevant. War has changed significantly since and inventing parameters to achieve the preferred outcome doesn't change the fact that mass production is no longer possible. Once you get in that hole all the winner has to do is keep on shovelling. Plus if everyone starves to death which is you argument for stockpiles, why not wait that few extra months? People who starved to death usually aren't so stubborn. If a country is losing and starving stockpiles only delay the inevitable.
- Again, keep you fighting longer for what? Modern military equipment isn't designed for mass production. Its all designed to win the first phase. Stockpiles do nothing but delay the inevitable.
- Well seeing as we haven't had a nuclear war calculating the chances are a bit hard. But again, there are so many world ending events you should focus on then. And I'm not talking about spending all our money in the here and now, I'm advocating spending that money on future problems that don't assume 99% of the people are dead. There are more pressing future issues for the next generations that that money is much better spent on. You can keep talking about short-sighted, but I call investing huge amounts of public money on 1 future out of a possible 1000000 short sighted.
- Talking about produced foodstuffs, not those from stockpiles.
- That really depends, the Dutch government is less well prepared than many people might think. Having abandoned most Cold War plans. As for those farmers, you have no idea about their actual capabilities without all that infrastructure. Just assuming they can continue on a smaller scale is a huge if. It isn't arcane or secret no, but its going to be a lot harder to learn when half the country is on fire and gone. Of course its not going to be the end of the world, but its going to be a lot harder than just dusting off and starting back up on a smaller scale. We have no clue how many farmers can actually make that shift or have sufficient seed stockpiles to just be able to do it alone.
- Loads? The oldest known skeleton in Europe is about 40k years old and at the edge of Europe. Current archeological theory that is up and coming says that it might have taken several thousands or even ten thousand for H Sapiens to establish themselves in Europe proper. Interesting discussion but drifting a bit far perhaps. Regardless, its true they have a group to survive in, but most people have exactly the same skills as that call center employee. How many experienced survivalists are there going to be on the average population? 1 out of a 1000 or 10000? They can't take care of all those people even if brought down to 1 in a 100 or even 50. Most people are going to be utterly useless beyond menial labor. The government to be able to do that right after a nuclear war would also need large or even huge amounts of stockliles of vehicles and equipment, staff and everything required at the ready. But unless all those people live in or really close to those bunkers they won't make it in time. So restoring government control alone is going to require a massive investment. Likely the government won't be in any position to provide immediate help to the survivors.
- Of course it could be done, but the comparison to Belarus is less relevant because the effects of a full out nuclear war would be far worse. Belarus still had functioning systems, a world to function in and the ability to ask for expert help. None of that is certain after a nuclear war, maybe you will get outside help and maybe you won't. But rebuilding will be far more time consuming and likely isn't going to bring you back to anywhere near the old level. It would be Belarus on steroids, with far more unforseeable problems.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You know how there's still parts of Sweden where the flora and fauna is inedible by humans because of Chernobyl? That was more than 30 years ago halfway across Europe from here. This idea that the fallout isn't going to be so bad is kinda dangerous.
There is people living a lot closer to Chernobyl who pick mushrooms out of the local forests and they aren't dead yet. There is also people who directly survived a nuclear bomb going off close to them and lived to be 90. The idea that fallout is this incredibly dangerous thing is kinda silly. All it does is give you an increased risk of cancer, but so does smoking or eating processed meat. I mean, I am not saying you should eat contaminated mushrooms or anything, but if you were to survive a nuclear war and had to eat them to survive it would not be that bad.
A country like Belarus had 1/3rd of its population killed in WW2, and all of its infrastructure destroyed. It got next to no help to rebuild because it was part of the Soviet Union so the West did not want to help
BS. Stalin refused offers of help. The Marshall plan explicitly offered to help the Soviet Union too; Stalin declined.
I'm not going to bother with very long responss as this is going increasingly in circles so I will just make short comments on each section quickly:
- Those stockpiles would have long been taken by the Germans in 1945. They were already starving civilians on a large scale in 1941 in the East and taking everything not nailed down in Western and Eastern Europe. The expectation that food stockpiles would have helped is just unrealistic.
True. In that very specific case they would not have helped.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - We have seen decisive knockout punches in the opening phases of almost every recent war involving a major power. Applying overwhelming force as quickly as possible is the key to winning the opening phase. Skirmishing first gives away the advantage of a knockout punch. Also it was never about the winning side quickly ending it. Its about the losing side's highly unlikely chance to recover and regroup with modern equipment. Sure the losing side could drag it out, but realistically its not going anywhere. Both Iraq wars were over the moment they began. Iran-Iraq War has serious issues as a template of a modern war between well trained armies. Plus even taking into account WW1 and 2, there was no relief for the losing side, once those blockades were set up it was steadily downhill for the Central and Axis powers.
The Iran-Iraq war is far more realistic as a template for modern war than any other war, since it is the only war since the Korean war that has been fought between roughly equally matched opponents. Yes, their armies weren't well trained, but that was true for both sides. If both sides are well trained, that basically doesn't give an advantage to either side. The Iraq war barely was a war at all, and not at all a template for how a conflict between two major superpowers would unfold.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - Bringing up stubborn and WW2 is unrealistic in todays world. Equipment production isn't possible on such a massive scale anymore.
Using WW2 as a template for what a modern war looks like isn't relevant. War has changed significantly since and inventing parameters to achieve the preferred outcome doesn't change the fact that mass production is no longer possible. Once you get in that hole all the winner has to do is keep on shovelling. Plus if everyone starves to death which is you argument for stockpiles, why not wait that few extra months? People who starved to death usually aren't so stubborn. If a country is losing and starving stockpiles only delay the inevitable.
I welcome you to come visit Uralvagonzavod. They have the infrastructure in place to churn out T-72 tanks by the bucketload. Modern military equipment is almost entirely mass production. It is easy to scale up such mass production, especially of simple weapon systems such as T-72 tanks, BMP-series vehicles, infantry weapons and Kamaz trucks. These things were literally designed to be produced on a massive scale for a massive war. Sure, complicated tech such as fifth-generation fighter jets or Armata tanks will be difficult to produce on similar massive scales, but large wars are not won with such weapons. They are too few to seriously affect the outcome of a large war. War actually has not changed from WW2. Almost everything that is around today was around in WW2 as well, with the notable exceptions of helicopters and advanced missile technology. Everything else in the arsenal of a modern military is basically just modernised versions of WW2 equipment. And as equipment has advanced, so have manufacturing techniques. There is no reason why we could not mass-produce modern military equipment on a far larger scale. All it would require is more resources and more money, both of which would not be an issue in wartime as both get funneled towards increased military production instead of civilian purposes.
Your argument regarding starvation does not make sense. It simply is not true. Just look at historical examples of starvation in wartime.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - Again, keep you fighting longer for what? Modern military equipment isn't designed for mass production. Its all designed to win the first phase. Stockpiles do nothing but delay the inevitable.
Soviet designers would like to have a word with you. Almost everything the Russian army currently uses was designed for mass production.
As to why keep fighting? Because you can win. It is not like the defenders of Leningrad were like 'Oh, we are starving. Let's surrender, why would we keep fighting?'. No, they chose to starve to death. And they kept fighting. And they won.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - Well seeing as we haven't had a nuclear war calculating the chances are a bit hard. But again, there are so many world ending events you should focus on then. And I'm not talking about spending all our money in the here and now, I'm advocating spending that money on future problems that don't assume 99% of the people are dead. There are more pressing future issues for the next generations that that money is much better spent on. You can keep talking about short-sighted, but I call investing huge amounts of public money on 1 future out of a possible 1000000 short sighted.
Nobody is assuming 99% of the people will be dead but you. Going on the only available evidence we have, which is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a lot more people than 1% will survive, even without purpose-built shelters. And this is 1 future out of 10000000000 ones that actually is plausible. And potentially very destructive. Therefore we must be prepared for it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - That really depends, the Dutch government is less well prepared than many people might think. Having abandoned most Cold War plans. As for those farmers, you have no idea about their actual capabilities without all that infrastructure. Just assuming they can continue on a smaller scale is a huge if. It isn't arcane or secret no, but its going to be a lot harder to learn when half the country is on fire and gone. Of course its not going to be the end of the world, but its going to be a lot harder than just dusting off and starting back up on a smaller scale. We have no clue how many farmers can actually make that shift or have sufficient seed stockpiles to just be able to do it alone.
- Loads? The oldest known skeleton in Europe is about 40k years old and at the edge of Europe. Current archeological theory that is up and coming says that it might have taken several thousands or even ten thousand for H Sapiens to establish themselves in Europe proper. Interesting discussion but drifting a bit far perhaps. Regardless, its true they have a group to survive in, but most people have exactly the same skills as that call center employee. How many experienced survivalists are there going to be on the average population? 1 out of a 1000 or 10000? They can't take care of all those people even if brought down to 1 in a 100 or even 50. Most people are going to be utterly useless beyond menial labor. The government to be able to do that right after a nuclear war would also need large or even huge amounts of stockliles of vehicles and equipment, staff and everything required at the ready. But unless all those people live in or really close to those bunkers they won't make it in time. So restoring government control alone is going to require a massive investment. Likely the government won't be in any position to provide immediate help to the survivors.
- Of course it could be done, but the comparison to Belarus is less relevant because the effects of a full out nuclear war would be far worse. Belarus still had functioning systems, a world to function in and the ability to ask for expert help. None of that is certain after a nuclear war, maybe you will get outside help and maybe you won't. But rebuilding will be far more time consuming and likely isn't going to bring you back to anywhere near the old level. It would be Belarus on steroids, with far more unforseeable problems.
True. It would take a very long time before the world would be built back up to the level of today, if ever. But the world would survive. And I think it is worth spending a bit of money now on helping that survival, just in the not all that unlikely case the worst does happen. Especially since stockpiles would also come in handy during other calamities such as natural disasters.
Ultimately, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Evidently, you do not think it is worth it, while I do. We probably should agree to disagree. This argument is getting long.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If there are limited nukes launched the solution is to evacuate completely. If all-out war happens then yeah, we're all gunna die. You have shelters? So what? Whatever supplies you have aren't going to outlast the radiation, and whatever sanity people have is unlikely to even last long enough to deplete the supplies. Ever consider that dying in the nuclear apocalypse is quite possibly the better option?
And I like how you say that the Soviet Union continued spending right up until the their economy collapsed, gee, some might say those two things were related.
1. The average flight time of an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile is 20 to 30 minutes, over the Arctic Circle, from Asia (the standard flight path of Soviet (and today, Russian) and Chinese ICBMs, in the event of a preemptive strike or retalitory counterstrike). Maybe 10 minutes for a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile from the Pacific or Atlantic, depending on target. There is no way in hell you are going to evacuate several million people in a major metro area in that time frame. Which is what you will get if a power launches an attack without warning,either a massive attack against the United States or a limited offensive strike. A single missile from a hole like Krazy Kim's Police State Theme Park (fun for the whole family!) will be a threat if THAAD fails in an intercept, or a launch comes from a power that has no THAAD defensive coverage. Such an attack will come without sufficient warning for evacuation of a major city.
2. Not necessarily. Nuclear war is survivable. Civilization will be decimated and the world population will be greatly reduced in the event of an all-out conflict. But it's not an extinction level event. Which, of course, is a moot point. Most strategic thinking in the later years of the Cold War was based on a limited nuclear exchange, which would have been terrible, but even less likely to wipe out Humanity.
3. Shelters that are properly built and properly stocked, combined with a solid civil defense plan, will outlast the radioactivity will the shortest half-life. Modern strategic thermonuclear weapons are considered "clean" nukes, with minimum long term radioactivity and fallout ( from ground burst attacks on hardened targets). This was the end result of Enhanced Radiation Weapon research in the 1960's through the 1980's. So-called "neutron bombs" were never deployed en mass because of the political fallout due to public misconceptions of how such weapons work. But the technology was utilized in the moderization of conventional nuclear devices.
4. The crap that you see in movies of massive fallout all over the damned place is just that:crap. Most military instillations and civilian strategic targets in the United States would be attacked via air burst to ensure destruction over a wider area. Air burst attacks produce minimum fallout. Only hardened/underground facilities (Cheyenne Mountain, USAF Launch Control Centers, etc) would be hit by ground burst attacks.
5. You will have people that prey on others or lose their cool in any disaster. Nuclear war would be no different. But on the flipside, you will have those that keep a level head and are prepared. Just like in any other disaster.
6. I was a 19K in the U.S. Army stationed in Germany in the late 1980's (my first posting after all the training was said and done Stateside). In that period, we trained to fight on the nuclear battlefield, since it was assumed that somebody, either NATO or WarPac, was going to cross the threshold. Tactical nuclear wepons WERE going to be deployed at some point, followed (in all likelyhood) by a limited strategic exchange before a cease-fire was called. So I know enough to confidently say that with preparedness, your odds of surviving a nuclear exchange ranges from fair to pretty good. Your fatalism isn't based on facts, but by the horse crap that was spread by the anti-nuclear crowd (with good intentions. But you know what they say about the road to hell), starting in the Cold War.
7. It wasn't civil defense efforts that broke the Soviet bank. It was ever increasing military spending (due mostly in response to Reagan's revitalization of the armed forces, and the Soviet hysteria regarding the Strategic Defense Inititive), while being saddled with a poorly run socialist command economy.
7. It wasn't civil defense efforts that broke the Soviet bank. It was ever increasing military spending (due mostly in response to Reagan's revitalization of the armed forces, and the Soviet hysteria regarding the Strategic Defense Inititive), while being saddled with a poorly run socialist command economy.
The war in Afghanistan and all of the money wasted on keeping allied socialist states afloat also played major roles.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You know how there's still parts of Sweden where the flora and fauna is inedible by humans because of Chernobyl? That was more than 30 years ago halfway across Europe from here. This idea that the fallout isn't going to be so bad is kinda dangerous.
You're confusing health warnings saying "You shouldn't eat this stuff" as meaning they are lethal to consume. If you ate some of those plants or animals which are still contaminated by Chernobyl you'd survive. You'll probably come down with cancer in 20-40 years if you made a habit of it, but you could eat it and survive for a length of time which I would classify as being acceptable considering you're living in a post-apocalyptic world. Standards would be a bit low in that situation.
When we're talking about the long term survival of the human species... Yeah, its definitely in the "Not so bad" category. "Not so bad" doesn't mean no ill effects whatsoever. It means we could survive through it collectively.
I'm not confusing anything. What happens to humanity as a whole when all the food we eat increases the risk of cancer or stillbirths? Sure, people who survived the nuclear exchange could keep living for most of their lifespan, but the next generation, and the one after that? When all you have to eat contains heightened levels of carcinogenic substances it adds up, no?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You know how there's still parts of Sweden where the flora and fauna is inedible by humans because of Chernobyl? That was more than 30 years ago halfway across Europe from here. This idea that the fallout isn't going to be so bad is kinda dangerous.
You're confusing health warnings saying "You shouldn't eat this stuff" as meaning they are lethal to consume. If you ate some of those plants or animals which are still contaminated by Chernobyl you'd survive. You'll probably come down with cancer in 20-40 years if you made a habit of it, but you could eat it and survive for a length of time which I would classify as being acceptable considering you're living in a post-apocalyptic world. Standards would be a bit low in that situation.
When we're talking about the long term survival of the human species... Yeah, its definitely in the "Not so bad" category. "Not so bad" doesn't mean no ill effects whatsoever. It means we could survive through it collectively.
I'm not confusing anything. What happens to humanity as a whole when all the food we eat increases the risk of cancer or stillbirths? Sure, people who survived the nuclear exchange could keep living for most of their lifespan, but the next generation, and the one after that? When all you have to eat contains heightened levels of carcinogenic substances it adds up, no?
Heightened levels? Yes. Levels which will ensure the sterilization of humanity? Not even close.
As has been mentioned in many many posts in this thread, a massive chunk of Earth will be pretty much untouched due to how a nuclear exchange will actually happen(all targets for nukes being targeted by far more than is technically necessary because of redundancy. The extremely short half-life of Fallout. The limited amount of fallout which will actually be generated. etc...).
A heightened probability of cancer and stillbirths isn't going to extinguish humanity. Not the levels which an actual nuclear exchange would actually cause. You've pretty much swallowed anti-Nuclear fearmongering hook, line, and sinker. I'm not saying its not an awful thing to have happen. I'm just saying that its far far less bad than what doomsday prophets like yourself would have us believe.
Cancer is scary, but its a slow killer. Its not capable of wiping out a species because it is too slow at killing individual members of the population. You can reproduce successfully many times over before Cancer can kill you. Again, as mentioned there are people alive today who survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was 73 years ago. Surviving that long after directly being exposed to a nuclear bomb I think really shows the error of your argument. And to a bomb that was far dirtier than modern nuclear weaponry no less.
Heightened levels? Yes. Levels which will ensure the sterilization of humanity? Not even close.
As has been mentioned in many many posts in this thread, a massive chunk of Earth will be pretty much untouched due to how a nuclear exchange will actually happen(all targets for nukes being targeted by far more than is technically necessary because of redundancy. The extremely short half-life of Fallout. The limited amount of fallout which will actually be generated. etc...).
What parts of the Earth though? I'm sure we'll all take extreme comfort in having the Sahara Desert being free of radiation. The area where most people actually live would be pretty fethed though. You're also assuming that there isn't going to be a bunch of additional fallout from nuclear power plants being hit, or that the wind doesn't happen to carry a bunch of radioactive clouds in the wrong direction.
Cancer is scary, but its a slow killer. Its not capable of wiping out a species because it is too slow at killing individual members of the population. You can reproduce successfully many times over before Cancer can kill you. Again, as mentioned there are people alive today who survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was 73 years ago. Surviving that long after directly being exposed to a nuclear bomb I think really shows the error of your argument. And to a bomb that was far dirtier than modern nuclear weaponry no less.
That's a bit dishonest, to be frank; Little Boy and Fat Man were relatively dirty for their yield. Even assuming a yield of 300kt we're talking twenty times the blast yield of Hiroshima. You're also assuming that we're talking about a fission-fusion device, as opposed to a fission-fusion-fission device.
It's entirely possible that you're right and that humanity would survive, but there's an awful lot of assumptions being made that might not pan out, and I'd rather we didn't play the odds at all.
Desubot wrote: Speaking of assumptions, gotta ask are nuclear power plants even a target for a full on MAD war?
Even a few they survived the first exchange. Minus power, support and staff one could easily meltdown after due to time and disator damage.
That's a big problem. So even after your gonna get a big radiation problem down the line.
I really wouldn't say easily. outside of some serious incompetence those things are designed with an gak load of fail safes (yes in like 200 years if no one has gone back to maintain them they could eventually leak)
Heightened levels? Yes. Levels which will ensure the sterilization of humanity? Not even close.
As has been mentioned in many many posts in this thread, a massive chunk of Earth will be pretty much untouched due to how a nuclear exchange will actually happen(all targets for nukes being targeted by far more than is technically necessary because of redundancy. The extremely short half-life of Fallout. The limited amount of fallout which will actually be generated. etc...).
What parts of the Earth though? I'm sure we'll all take extreme comfort in having the Sahara Desert being free of radiation. The area where most people actually live would be pretty fethed though. You're also assuming that there isn't going to be a bunch of additional fallout from nuclear power plants being hit, or that the wind doesn't happen to carry a bunch of radioactive clouds in the wrong direction.
The parts of Earth not within the immediate blast zones of Nuclear targets. Plenty of that is areas of agricultural land.
Lets take California. Pretty much most of the central valley isn't going to suffer a direct nuclear strike. San Fran, LA, and Sacramento will get hit by multiple warheads, but the rest of the state has low population density so aside from any military bases it will get largely ignored. The same applies to the whole US.
Furthermore, when attacking a population center to simply cause casualties, you go for an airburst detonation and not a ground level. This type of detonation leaves relatively little fallout. Only hard targets like military bunkers are going to suffer ground level detonations, the kind that creates massive quantities of fallout.
So areas like the Sierra Nevada, Rockies, Central Valley of CA, forested areas of the Pacific Northwest, most of Alaska outside of major military bases and Anchorage and Juno. Almost the entire American Midwest outside of the capitol cities and of course the massive military complex in Colorado.
The East Coast isn't going to be as lucky since there are a lot of metropolitan areas very close together, but the west and central parts of the US have truly mindbogglingly huge amounts of space in between cities. You are from Europe so I can forgive you being somewhat unfamiliar with the concept since your continent is much more densely populated and doesn't have as much open space as we have over here.
Cancer is scary, but its a slow killer. Its not capable of wiping out a species because it is too slow at killing individual members of the population. You can reproduce successfully many times over before Cancer can kill you. Again, as mentioned there are people alive today who survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was 73 years ago. Surviving that long after directly being exposed to a nuclear bomb I think really shows the error of your argument. And to a bomb that was far dirtier than modern nuclear weaponry no less.
That's a bit dishonest, to be frank; Little Boy and Fat Man were relatively dirty for their yield. Even assuming a yield of 300kt we're talking twenty times the blast yield of Hiroshima. You're also assuming that we're talking about a fission-fusion device, as opposed to a fission-fusion-fission device.
It's entirely possible that you're right and that humanity would survive, but there's an awful lot of assumptions being made that might not pan out, and I'd rather we didn't play the odds at all.
Its not dishonest at all. If anything, its the "WE"REALLGONNADIE!!!" crowd who uses dishonest arguments. They don't actually consider the total impact of radiation, or that you can actually survive even a high amount of exposure. They don't really understand the resiliency of the human body and what it can endure and still function(by which I mean thrive enough to create a new viable generation). They see something that would lower our lifespan by a chunk of 20-30 years and think that means we'd go extinct. Completely forgetting that for most of human history you'd have been lucky to live past 40.
And again, you are ignoring that modern bombs explode far cleaner than old ones. "Dirty for their yield" doesn't change the argument. It actually continues to prove mine. All a bigger bomb means is that it can kill more people with its initial blast, but fewer will die from the after effects of radiation and fallout.
Desubot wrote: Speaking of assumptions, gotta ask are nuclear power plants even a target for a full on MAD war?
Even a few they survived the first exchange. Minus power, support and staff one could easily meltdown after due to time and disator damage.
That's a big problem. So even after your gonna get a big radiation problem down the line.
Nope. With all the safety features that modern power plants have, a meltdown is impossible if even half of the safety features work.
The absolute worst that could happen is maybe in a few hundred or even thousand years, the physical structure has decayed to the point where the nuclear material starts leaking into the ground water.
Meltdowns only occur when the reactor keeps generating power without the cooling systems doing enough to keep it cool. This causes the reactor to melt/catchfire/explode.
Modern safety systems will automatically, with or without human input, halt the nuclear reaction and remove the catalyst fuel rods and put them into storage where they are benign as long as you don't go swimming in the pool. So until the concrete and steel structure itself decays, an earthquake cracks it, or some nutter blows it up, the reactor is going to be perfectly safe. And it would take a very very long time for a concrete and steel structure to actually fully break down just due to things like the wind and rain.
You're also assuming that the exchange would be limited to your relatively clean weapons. If people start lobbing nukes at each other, odds are they'd fire everything they had and the kitchen sink, so let's just hope nobody's got any cobalt-enriched weapons, eh?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're also assuming that the exchange would be limited to your relatively clean weapons. If people start lobbing nukes at each other, odds are they'd fire everything they had and the kitchen sink, so let's just hope nobody's got any cobalt-enriched weapons, eh?
Would they? how many countries have janky dirt bombs lying around.
thinking about Murica Russia and probably China, most systems are already preset for specific designated targets. starting with the obvious Pentagon, white house kremlin and the likes, secondary targets probably being the military complex like major ports considering most world powers are ship based. those are basically guarantees.
Heightened levels? Yes. Levels which will ensure the sterilization of humanity? Not even close.
As has been mentioned in many many posts in this thread, a massive chunk of Earth will be pretty much untouched due to how a nuclear exchange will actually happen(all targets for nukes being targeted by far more than is technically necessary because of redundancy. The extremely short half-life of Fallout. The limited amount of fallout which will actually be generated. etc...).
What parts of the Earth though? I'm sure we'll all take extreme comfort in having the Sahara Desert being free of radiation. The area where most people actually live would be pretty fethed though. You're also assuming that there isn't going to be a bunch of additional fallout from nuclear power plants being hit, or that the wind doesn't happen to carry a bunch of radioactive clouds in the wrong direction.
The parts of Earth not within the immediate blast zones of Nuclear targets. Plenty of that is areas of agricultural land.
Lets take California. Pretty much most of the central valley isn't going to suffer a direct nuclear strike. San Fran, LA, and Sacramento will get hit by multiple warheads, but the rest of the state has low population density so aside from any military bases it will get largely ignored. The same applies to the whole US.
Furthermore, when attacking a population center to simply cause casualties, you go for an airburst detonation and not a ground level. This type of detonation leaves relatively little fallout. Only hard targets like military bunkers are going to suffer ground level detonations, the kind that creates massive quantities of fallout.
So areas like the Sierra Nevada, Rockies, Central Valley of CA, forested areas of the Pacific Northwest, most of Alaska outside of major military bases and Anchorage and Juno. Almost the entire American Midwest outside of the capitol cities and of course the massive military complex in Colorado.
The East Coast isn't going to be as lucky since there are a lot of metropolitan areas very close together, but the west and central parts of the US have truly mindbogglingly huge amounts of space in between cities. You are from Europe so I can forgive you being somewhat unfamiliar with the concept since your continent is much more densely populated and doesn't have as much open space as we have over here.
Cancer is scary, but its a slow killer. Its not capable of wiping out a species because it is too slow at killing individual members of the population. You can reproduce successfully many times over before Cancer can kill you. Again, as mentioned there are people alive today who survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was 73 years ago. Surviving that long after directly being exposed to a nuclear bomb I think really shows the error of your argument. And to a bomb that was far dirtier than modern nuclear weaponry no less.
That's a bit dishonest, to be frank; Little Boy and Fat Man were relatively dirty for their yield. Even assuming a yield of 300kt we're talking twenty times the blast yield of Hiroshima. You're also assuming that we're talking about a fission-fusion device, as opposed to a fission-fusion-fission device.
It's entirely possible that you're right and that humanity would survive, but there's an awful lot of assumptions being made that might not pan out, and I'd rather we didn't play the odds at all.
Its not dishonest at all. If anything, its the "WE"REALLGONNADIE!!!" crowd who uses dishonest arguments. They don't actually consider the total impact of radiation, or that you can actually survive even a high amount of exposure. They don't really understand the resiliency of the human body and what it can endure and still function(by which I mean thrive enough to create a new viable generation). They see something that would lower our lifespan by a chunk of 20-30 years and think that means we'd go extinct. Completely forgetting that for most of human history you'd have been lucky to live past 40.
And again, you are ignoring that modern bombs explode far cleaner than old ones. "Dirty for their yield" doesn't change the argument. It actually continues to prove mine. All a bigger bomb means is that it can kill more people with its initial blast, but fewer will die from the after effects of radiation and fallout.
Desubot wrote: Speaking of assumptions, gotta ask are nuclear power plants even a target for a full on MAD war?
Even a few they survived the first exchange. Minus power, support and staff one could easily meltdown after due to time and disator damage.
That's a big problem. So even after your gonna get a big radiation problem down the line.
Nope. With all the safety features that modern power plants have, a meltdown is impossible if even half of the safety features work.
The absolute worst that could happen is maybe in a few hundred or even thousand years, the physical structure has decayed to the point where the nuclear material starts leaking into the ground water.
Meltdowns only occur when the reactor keeps generating power without the cooling systems doing enough to keep it cool. This causes the reactor to melt/catchfire/explode.
Modern safety systems will automatically, with or without human input, halt the nuclear reaction and remove the catalyst fuel rods and put them into storage where they are benign as long as you don't go swimming in the pool. So until the concrete and steel structure itself decays, an earthquake cracks it, or some nutter blows it up, the reactor is going to be perfectly safe. And it would take a very very long time for a concrete and steel structure to actually fully break down just due to things like the wind and rain.
Still. Well what did one earthquake do... Brought down a entire power plant and even with massive human intervention there'd a multi mile zone that's too hot for humanity to live in for maybe centuries.
One earthquake, one tsunami was all it took.
Even with a auto shut down say the fuel storage ponds rely on a x amount of water to stay cool and keep the rods inert. Minus people to maintain.. You think that system stay 100% online. Parts wear out. Batteries and fuel decays, circuits and hard drives need replacement.
Decades. Maybe not centuries. The systems will decay, depending on age, they may not be as reliable as you say or as backed up.
Also some waste sites, some fuel storage and such. I think the real danger would be there, maybe bot that week but years later they will fail.
Those nuclear waste sites are going to be a real danger regardless of a nuclear war or not. the best our government has is to throw them into sealed salt mines. nothing stays sealed forever.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're also assuming that the exchange would be limited to your relatively clean weapons. If people start lobbing nukes at each other, odds are they'd fire everything they had and the kitchen sink, so let's just hope nobody's got any cobalt-enriched weapons, eh?
Yeah, it will be limited to relatively clean weapons. And of those, many of them will never get launched.
Go back and read the post regarding keeping missiles on standby. A missile can only be kept like that for a short time before you have to pump out the tanks. Which means a huge chunk of anybody's stockpile is effectively useless at any one time. And those sites are unlikely to be ever readied because they'll get hit by an attack before they can launch.
And certainly nobody is going to dig into an old bunker somewhere to get some old nukes from the cold war to strap into a plane.
Still. Well what did one earthquake do... Brought down a entire power plant and even with massive human intervention there'd a multi mile zone that's too hot for humanity to live in for maybe centuries.
One earthquake, one tsunami was all it took.
Even with a auto shut down say the fuel storage ponds rely on a x amount of water to stay cool and keep the rods inert. Minus people to maintain.. You think that system stay 100% online. Parts wear out. Batteries and fuel decays, circuits and hard drives need replacement.
Decades. Maybe not centuries. The systems will decay, depending on age, they may not be as reliable as you say or as backed up.
Also some waste sites, some fuel storage and such. I think the real danger would be there, maybe bot that week but years later they will fail.
Most nuclear power plants are not near earthquake fault lines. Not ones big enough to realistically threaten the plant in a reasonable timeframe we should be concerned about. Human society will have rebuilt sufficiently to take the plants back under control long before thats really a concern.
Yes, it is stupid to build a nuclear plant where Fukushima was. Most nuclear plants aren't in such bad locations.
The electronics will begin to decay, but on stand-by mode they're not going to wear out very fast at all. Its not going to be constantly pumping new water in. The pools are isolated and contain enough to hold the plant for a very long time.
feeder wrote: I think jhe90's point was that a total nuclear exchange will be rather worse for a power plant's overall stability than one earthquake.
That entirely depends on if the plant is in the actual blast zone or not. A lot of power plants will be just by proximity to other targets, but its doubtful they'll specifically be targeted. Any which are not within the blast zone are going to be fine from a structural stand point.
Power plants would be useful targets in a conventional war, but the EMP effects of nuclear weapons renders the point of hitting power plants moot. Why destroy energy generation when the energy grid is already going to be completely fried?
feeder wrote: I think jhe90's point was that a total nuclear exchange will be rather worse for a power plant's overall stability than one earthquake.
That entirely depends on if the plant is in the actual blast zone or not. A lot of power plants will be just by proximity to other targets, but its doubtful they'll specifically be targeted. Any which are not within the blast zone are going to be fine from a structural stand point.
Power plants would be useful targets in a conventional war, but the EMP effects of nuclear weapons renders the point of hitting power plants moot. Why destroy energy generation when the energy grid is already going to be completely fried?
Because the radiation from a blown-up nuclear power plant would be very bad news for people trying to survive in the vicinity?
feeder wrote: I think jhe90's point was that a total nuclear exchange will be rather worse for a power plant's overall stability than one earthquake.
That entirely depends on if the plant is in the actual blast zone or not. A lot of power plants will be just by proximity to other targets, but its doubtful they'll specifically be targeted. Any which are not within the blast zone are going to be fine from a structural stand point.
Power plants would be useful targets in a conventional war, but the EMP effects of nuclear weapons renders the point of hitting power plants moot. Why destroy energy generation when the energy grid is already going to be completely fried?
im thinking the frying of the grid via EMP means that a power plant needs to be wired to the grid right?
thats there power supply. Minus that the reactors shut down in one post claimed,
Oh... even with back ups which run out, the pumps keeping the pools full shut down. the water in spent fuel dries. heat, more dry, boom we have nuclear fires and free reacting fuel.
add the energry realse, Hello pure nuclear fuel fallout and smoke. bye bye any life in its way.
thats only one way of many it could go south quick. One plant was shut down by colgged coolent pipes of jellyfish in UK, no clearence, no water, or less. again even if auto, we have a problem. pump seal fails, problem, battery fail problem, wire snaps.
there too complicated to be left to run and run on devices.
feeder wrote: I think jhe90's point was that a total nuclear exchange will be rather worse for a power plant's overall stability than one earthquake.
That entirely depends on if the plant is in the actual blast zone or not. A lot of power plants will be just by proximity to other targets, but its doubtful they'll specifically be targeted. Any which are not within the blast zone are going to be fine from a structural stand point.
Power plants would be useful targets in a conventional war, but the EMP effects of nuclear weapons renders the point of hitting power plants moot. Why destroy energy generation when the energy grid is already going to be completely fried?
Because the radiation from a blown-up nuclear power plant would be very bad news for people trying to survive in the vicinity?
Yeah, but you already detonated 5-10, if not more, H-bombs on top of their city.
And the point of a nuclear exchange, contrary to popular belief, is not to utterly destroy every single person in your opponent's country. Its to annihilate their military assets while also taking out most of the population, and the threat of doing that. Its not utter and total extermination of every person on the planet(we literally cannot do that at this time).
feeder wrote: I think jhe90's point was that a total nuclear exchange will be rather worse for a power plant's overall stability than one earthquake.
That entirely depends on if the plant is in the actual blast zone or not. A lot of power plants will be just by proximity to other targets, but its doubtful they'll specifically be targeted. Any which are not within the blast zone are going to be fine from a structural stand point.
Power plants would be useful targets in a conventional war, but the EMP effects of nuclear weapons renders the point of hitting power plants moot. Why destroy energy generation when the energy grid is already going to be completely fried?
Because the radiation from a blown-up nuclear power plant would be very bad news for people trying to survive in the vicinity?
And what advantage does that gain for the attacker? to attack a nuclear power plant and create a no mans land on some other continent.
asides from the spite they will gain from literally everyone.
jhe90 wrote: People forget even post nuclear exchange, any crops out there gonna be in radiated by the dust from thr various nukes.
Thr dust thrown up might cause a nuclear winter and stop or slow any surviving crop and plant life.
This a will hammer animal population too, so food gonna be reduced for up to years after thr exchange.
Let's be honest. Anything after a nuclear war will be utterly fetched. Any semebelence of life before take maybe decades to restore if ever.
Theoretically.
in practice the dust will settle out with the rain, get into drinking water and food and potentially cause a relative amount of thyroid cancer from the last time it happened.
we dont know if winter is coming. but the immediate thing we do know is the fallout will go somewhere.
jhe90 wrote: People forget even post nuclear exchange, any crops out there gonna be in radiated by the dust from thr various nukes.
Thr dust thrown up might cause a nuclear winter and stop or slow any surviving crop and plant life.
This a will hammer animal population too, so food gonna be reduced for up to years after thr exchange.
Let's be honest. Anything after a nuclear war will be utterly fetched. Any semebelence of life before take maybe decades to restore if ever.
Theoretically.
in practice the dust will settle out with the rain, get into drinking water and food and potentially cause a relative amount of thyroid cancer from the last time it happened.
we dont know if winter is coming. but the immediate thing we do know is the fallout will go somewhere.
True.
A good job we do not the exact answer. We have not done it!
Either way, there's gonna be alot of radioactive dust, contamination and water. The levels of contamination will be very high in some areas and even those outside the blast zones will be down wind or effected by rivers etc caryying.
That will cause alot of harm however it finds it way to peoples lives. There no escaping it.
No, but you can survive it by a combination of luck and heading for less contaminated areas. Though if you are alive after the initial exchange chances are you are already in an area that wont be as badly effected.
I'm not going to bother with very long responss as this is going increasingly in circles so I will just make short comments on each section quickly:
- Those stockpiles would have long been taken by the Germans in 1945. They were already starving civilians on a large scale in 1941 in the East and taking everything not nailed down in Western and Eastern Europe. The expectation that food stockpiles would have helped is just unrealistic.
True. In that very specific case they would not have helped.
Problem being that in wartime they are only going to be useful in specific cases anyway. Mainland Europe hasn't seen large scale conflict since WW2 (except Yugoslavia), so how much money would those stockpiles cost to maintain and refresh in those 70 years? Money will always be the determining factor. The risk benefit analysis for food stockpiles when it comes to war just isn't worth it, especially seeing you can pump those funds into the military and try and prevent those stockpiles from becoming necessary in the first place.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - We have seen decisive knockout punches in the opening phases of almost every recent war involving a major power. Applying overwhelming force as quickly as possible is the key to winning the opening phase. Skirmishing first gives away the advantage of a knockout punch. Also it was never about the winning side quickly ending it. Its about the losing side's highly unlikely chance to recover and regroup with modern equipment. Sure the losing side could drag it out, but realistically its not going anywhere. Both Iraq wars were over the moment they began. Iran-Iraq War has serious issues as a template of a modern war between well trained armies. Plus even taking into account WW1 and 2, there was no relief for the losing side, once those blockades were set up it was steadily downhill for the Central and Axis powers.
The Iran-Iraq war is far more realistic as a template for modern war than any other war, since it is the only war since the Korean war that has been fought between roughly equally matched opponents. Yes, their armies weren't well trained, but that was true for both sides. If both sides are well trained, that basically doesn't give an advantage to either side. The Iraq war barely was a war at all, and not at all a template for how a conflict between two major superpowers would unfold.
Yes it was between roughly equally terrible opponents. That's the issue with using it as a comparison, major powers have shown much better capabilities in modern war. Both sides weren't well trained, but the Iraqis had the advantage in training while the Iranians had it in equipment. Iran barely managed to ward off Iraq in the beginning due to their equipment advantage but didn't have the training to capitalize on their later advantage. If Iran had better training or Iraq more equipment it would have been over much faster.
So Iraq-Iran isn't a great template for major power wars, but the Gulf Wars are, because you can see a major power in an offensive capacity. Just because Iraq was weak doesn't detract from how the US planned and executed the war. Its unlikely that the US would change much in strategy, as a speedy initial strike is key to gaining the upper hand. We can expect both major powers to commit most of their strength in the opening phase to try gain the advantage as early as possible. Holding back your forces just opens your own army up to being destroyed piecemeal by a concentrated enemy offensive with larger forces.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - Bringing up stubborn and WW2 is unrealistic in todays world. Equipment production isn't possible on such a massive scale anymore. Using WW2 as a template for what a modern war looks like isn't relevant. War has changed significantly since and inventing parameters to achieve the preferred outcome doesn't change the fact that mass production is no longer possible. Once you get in that hole all the winner has to do is keep on shovelling. Plus if everyone starves to death which is you argument for stockpiles, why not wait that few extra months? People who starved to death usually aren't so stubborn. If a country is losing and starving stockpiles only delay the inevitable.
I welcome you to come visit Uralvagonzavod. They have the infrastructure in place to churn out T-72 tanks by the bucketload. Modern military equipment is almost entirely mass production. It is easy to scale up such mass production, especially of simple weapon systems such as T-72 tanks, BMP-series vehicles, infantry weapons and Kamaz trucks. These things were literally designed to be produced on a massive scale for a massive war. Sure, complicated tech such as fifth-generation fighter jets or Armata tanks will be difficult to produce on similar massive scales, but large wars are not won with such weapons. They are too few to seriously affect the outcome of a large war. War actually has not changed from WW2. Almost everything that is around today was around in WW2 as well, with the notable exceptions of helicopters and advanced missile technology. Everything else in the arsenal of a modern military is basically just modernised versions of WW2 equipment. And as equipment has advanced, so have manufacturing techniques. There is no reason why we could not mass-produce modern military equipment on a far larger scale. All it would require is more resources and more money, both of which would not be an issue in wartime as both get funneled towards increased military production instead of civilian purposes. Your argument regarding starvation does not make sense. It simply is not true. Just look at historical examples of starvation in wartime.
Yes, the T-72 production might prove useful in specific cases. But newer tank models don't have the same production runs. Plus tanks alone aren't going to win you the war. If you lose the air war then those tanks become very expensive targets. Plus its great that you can churn out cheaper tanks by the hundreds, but then training comes in and such. How long does getting a new crew trained up to battle readiness cost etc. That's all time you might not have, if your air force loses the war in the first few months those factories turn into scrap metal. The force you start the war with is going to be decisive, and using it to knock out as many of the enemy's forces as possible would be critical. A solid opening offensive would only lead to reinforcements being funneled in piecemeal if the main army is broken. This isn't WW2 where you can safely manufacture far away from the front, aircraft can reach every part of the globe now.
Problem is that mass production of military equipment is very costly and takes a long time to get going again, it would bankrupt or devastate most builders or the government after the war. Further you have to take into account that not all countries poses the resources required internally. That first year is going to play a critical role. But if you want to argue that modern equipment isn't going to be decisive to win the war I don't know what to say. A top of the line air superiority fighter outperforming the opponent's aircraft can have large consequences on the wider conflict for example. There is a reason countries invest heavily in modernization and equipment like this, if countries wouldn't think it would seriously affect the outcome why would they invest in it?
Historical examples do not carry as much value because history and especially warfare aren't cyclical. Conditions have changed immensely in 70 years let alone centuries. Were talking about a scenario where food stockpiles become useful to ward off starvation in wartime. This means the enemy has cut off all external food sources due to being able to do so with a stronger military from the initial clash. Either the enemy is preparing to invade or has the strength necessary to keep up the blockade while you have no power to break it, hence requiring those stockpiles. We're not talking about a slow back and forth between armies, were talking about a scenario in which one side can totally dominate the availability of food, that's not a normal historical scenario. The closest comparison would be Japan in 45, being completely strangled resource wise by the US submarine blockade, in 45 Japan was in no condition to ever be able to break that blockade. That is the scenario were looking at, vastly unbalanced levels of power between two combatants that there is no coming back from.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - Again, keep you fighting longer for what? Modern military equipment isn't designed for mass production. Its all designed to win the first phase. Stockpiles do nothing but delay the inevitable.
Soviet designers would like to have a word with you. Almost everything the Russian army currently uses was designed for mass production. As to why keep fighting? Because you can win. It is not like the defenders of Leningrad were like 'Oh, we are starving. Let's surrender, why would we keep fighting?'. No, they chose to starve to death. And they kept fighting. And they won.
Both the Soviets and the US employed a level of mass production up to an extent when it was still affordable. This shifted in the 70's and 80's as can be seen by production numbers of newer equipment on both sides. For example, while the T-72 has been built in the tens of thousands the later models only reach several thousands. Planes, tanks and other big equipment actually have pretty similar production runs in the West and in the SU from the late 1970's onward.
Because you can't really. The Soviets had a manpower advantage, an industrial advantage and the advantage of geography. At least two out of these three factors can be negated by modern military equipment. The Germans had zero capabilities to bomb Soviet production, a lot of their equipment was still stationed in the West when it came to the air force and most of all they had done zero preparations beyond expecting to win soon. Meanwhile we're discussing a scenario in which the enemy due to a significant advantage has total control of what goes in and out of the country which leads to starvation. Leningrad had Soviets outside the city, but in the scenario discussed the whole country is the city. There is no outside help coming unless its a very unlikely 11th hour allied intervention.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - Well seeing as we haven't had a nuclear war calculating the chances are a bit hard. But again, there are so many world ending events you should focus on then. And I'm not talking about spending all our money in the here and now, I'm advocating spending that money on future problems that don't assume 99% of the people are dead. There are more pressing future issues for the next generations that that money is much better spent on. You can keep talking about short-sighted, but I call investing huge amounts of public money on 1 future out of a possible 1000000 short sighted.
Nobody is assuming 99% of the people will be dead but you. Going on the only available evidence we have, which is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a lot more people than 1% will survive, even without purpose-built shelters. And this is 1 future out of 10000000000 ones that actually is plausible. And potentially very destructive. Therefore we must be prepared for it.
Given how small the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were we have no real idea. But yes, saying 99% is an overstatement, so should we assume 70-80%, as around 50% died in Japan? And yes the other 999999 futures are also possible, with many overlapping, meanwhile nuclear war has zero overlap. Investment into other projects can do good in multiple futures.
But again, what should we prepare for, because there are a lot of events that could destroy human civilization. Super-volcanoes, asteroids etc. By your logic you should prepare for them all. I still believe that is an enormousness waste of resources better spent elsewhere. Besides, food stockpiles could possibly only give a false sense of security, if food production can't match the amount of survivors starvation will occur regardless.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - That really depends, the Dutch government is less well prepared than many people might think. Having abandoned most Cold War plans. As for those farmers, you have no idea about their actual capabilities without all that infrastructure. Just assuming they can continue on a smaller scale is a huge if. It isn't arcane or secret no, but its going to be a lot harder to learn when half the country is on fire and gone. Of course its not going to be the end of the world, but its going to be a lot harder than just dusting off and starting back up on a smaller scale. We have no clue how many farmers can actually make that shift or have sufficient seed stockpiles to just be able to do it alone.
- Loads? The oldest known skeleton in Europe is about 40k years old and at the edge of Europe. Current archeological theory that is up and coming says that it might have taken several thousands or even ten thousand for H Sapiens to establish themselves in Europe proper. Interesting discussion but drifting a bit far perhaps. Regardless, its true they have a group to survive in, but most people have exactly the same skills as that call center employee. How many experienced survivalists are there going to be on the average population? 1 out of a 1000 or 10000? They can't take care of all those people even if brought down to 1 in a 100 or even 50. Most people are going to be utterly useless beyond menial labor. The government to be able to do that right after a nuclear war would also need large or even huge amounts of stockliles of vehicles and equipment, staff and everything required at the ready. But unless all those people live in or really close to those bunkers they won't make it in time. So restoring government control alone is going to require a massive investment. Likely the government won't be in any position to provide immediate help to the survivors.
- Of course it could be done, but the comparison to Belarus is less relevant because the effects of a full out nuclear war would be far worse. Belarus still had functioning systems, a world to function in and the ability to ask for expert help. None of that is certain after a nuclear war, maybe you will get outside help and maybe you won't. But rebuilding will be far more time consuming and likely isn't going to bring you back to anywhere near the old level. It would be Belarus on steroids, with far more unforseeable problems.
True. It would take a very long time before the world would be built back up to the level of today, if ever. But the world would survive. And I think it is worth spending a bit of money now on helping that survival, just in the not all that unlikely case the worst does happen. Especially since stockpiles would also come in handy during other calamities such as natural disasters. Ultimately, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Evidently, you do not think it is worth it, while I do. We probably should agree to disagree. This argument is getting long.
The world would survive yes, but the money involved isn't just a bit. To stockpile food and maintain it would run into the billions or trillions. Also natural disasters? If you just spend more money on improving response efforts by national governments that is a lot more cost effective than setting up food stockpiles all over the country in case of a natural disaster.
My twin is stationed there. He called our mom saying that they loved her, all while you hear him saying to his 5 year old "Just keep playing with your toys buddy" it was crazy emotional. The phone cut out shortly after since most of the cell phone systems went down from over usage. My parents were shaking at that point.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - We have seen decisive knockout punches in the opening phases of almost every recent war involving a major power. Applying overwhelming force as quickly as possible is the key to winning the opening phase. Skirmishing first gives away the advantage of a knockout punch. Also it was never about the winning side quickly ending it. Its about the losing side's highly unlikely chance to recover and regroup with modern equipment. Sure the losing side could drag it out, but realistically its not going anywhere. Both Iraq wars were over the moment they began. Iran-Iraq War has serious issues as a template of a modern war between well trained armies. Plus even taking into account WW1 and 2, there was no relief for the losing side, once those blockades were set up it was steadily downhill for the Central and Axis powers.
The Iran-Iraq war is far more realistic as a template for modern war than any other war, since it is the only war since the Korean war that has been fought between roughly equally matched opponents. Yes, their armies weren't well trained, but that was true for both sides. If both sides are well trained, that basically doesn't give an advantage to either side. The Iraq war barely was a war at all, and not at all a template for how a conflict between two major superpowers would unfold.
Yes it was between roughly equally terrible opponents. That's the issue with using it as a comparison, major powers have shown much better capabilities in modern war. Both sides weren't well trained, but the Iraqis had the advantage in training while the Iranians had it in equipment. Iran barely managed to ward off Iraq in the beginning due to their equipment advantage but didn't have the training to capitalize on their later advantage. If Iran had better training or Iraq more equipment it would have been over much faster.
So Iraq-Iran isn't a great template for major power wars, but the Gulf Wars are, because you can see a major power in an offensive capacity. Just because Iraq was weak doesn't detract from how the US planned and executed the war. Its unlikely that the US would change much in strategy, as a speedy initial strike is key to gaining the upper hand. We can expect both major powers to commit most of their strength in the opening phase to try gain the advantage as early as possible. Holding back your forces just opens your own army up to being destroyed piecemeal by a concentrated enemy offensive with larger forces.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - Bringing up stubborn and WW2 is unrealistic in todays world. Equipment production isn't possible on such a massive scale anymore.
Using WW2 as a template for what a modern war looks like isn't relevant. War has changed significantly since and inventing parameters to achieve the preferred outcome doesn't change the fact that mass production is no longer possible. Once you get in that hole all the winner has to do is keep on shovelling. Plus if everyone starves to death which is you argument for stockpiles, why not wait that few extra months? People who starved to death usually aren't so stubborn. If a country is losing and starving stockpiles only delay the inevitable.
I welcome you to come visit Uralvagonzavod. They have the infrastructure in place to churn out T-72 tanks by the bucketload. Modern military equipment is almost entirely mass production. It is easy to scale up such mass production, especially of simple weapon systems such as T-72 tanks, BMP-series vehicles, infantry weapons and Kamaz trucks. These things were literally designed to be produced on a massive scale for a massive war. Sure, complicated tech such as fifth-generation fighter jets or Armata tanks will be difficult to produce on similar massive scales, but large wars are not won with such weapons. They are too few to seriously affect the outcome of a large war. War actually has not changed from WW2. Almost everything that is around today was around in WW2 as well, with the notable exceptions of helicopters and advanced missile technology. Everything else in the arsenal of a modern military is basically just modernised versions of WW2 equipment. And as equipment has advanced, so have manufacturing techniques. There is no reason why we could not mass-produce modern military equipment on a far larger scale. All it would require is more resources and more money, both of which would not be an issue in wartime as both get funneled towards increased military production instead of civilian purposes.
Your argument regarding starvation does not make sense. It simply is not true. Just look at historical examples of starvation in wartime.
Yes, the T-72 production might prove useful in specific cases. But newer tank models don't have the same production runs. Plus tanks alone aren't going to win you the war. If you lose the air war then those tanks become very expensive targets. Plus its great that you can churn out cheaper tanks by the hundreds, but then training comes in and such. How long does getting a new crew trained up to battle readiness cost etc. That's all time you might not have, if your air force loses the war in the first few months those factories turn into scrap metal. The force you start the war with is going to be decisive, and using it to knock out as many of the enemy's forces as possible would be critical. A solid opening offensive would only lead to reinforcements being funneled in piecemeal if the main army is broken. This isn't WW2 where you can safely manufacture far away from the front, aircraft can reach every part of the globe now.
Problem is that mass production of military equipment is very costly and takes a long time to get going again, it would bankrupt or devastate most builders or the government after the war. Further you have to take into account that not all countries poses the resources required internally. That first year is going to play a critical role. But if you want to argue that modern equipment isn't going to be decisive to win the war I don't know what to say. A top of the line air superiority fighter outperforming the opponent's aircraft can have large consequences on the wider conflict for example. There is a reason countries invest heavily in modernization and equipment like this, if countries wouldn't think it would seriously affect the outcome why would they invest in it?
Historical examples do not carry as much value because history and especially warfare aren't cyclical. Conditions have changed immensely in 70 years let alone centuries. Were talking about a scenario where food stockpiles become useful to ward off starvation in wartime. This means the enemy has cut off all external food sources due to being able to do so with a stronger military from the initial clash. Either the enemy is preparing to invade or has the strength necessary to keep up the blockade while you have no power to break it, hence requiring those stockpiles. We're not talking about a slow back and forth between armies, were talking about a scenario in which one side can totally dominate the availability of food, that's not a normal historical scenario. The closest comparison would be Japan in 45, being completely strangled resource wise by the US submarine blockade, in 45 Japan was in no condition to ever be able to break that blockade. That is the scenario were looking at, vastly unbalanced levels of power between two combatants that there is no coming back from.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - Again, keep you fighting longer for what? Modern military equipment isn't designed for mass production. Its all designed to win the first phase. Stockpiles do nothing but delay the inevitable.
Soviet designers would like to have a word with you. Almost everything the Russian army currently uses was designed for mass production.
As to why keep fighting? Because you can win. It is not like the defenders of Leningrad were like 'Oh, we are starving. Let's surrender, why would we keep fighting?'. No, they chose to starve to death. And they kept fighting. And they won.
Both the Soviets and the US employed a level of mass production up to an extent when it was still affordable. This shifted in the 70's and 80's as can be seen by production numbers of newer equipment on both sides. For example, while the T-72 has been built in the tens of thousands the later models only reach several thousands. Planes, tanks and other big equipment actually have pretty similar production runs in the West and in the SU from the late 1970's onward.
Because you can't really. The Soviets had a manpower advantage, an industrial advantage and the advantage of geography. At least two out of these three factors can be negated by modern military equipment. The Germans had zero capabilities to bomb Soviet production, a lot of their equipment was still stationed in the West when it came to the air force and most of all they had done zero preparations beyond expecting to win soon. Meanwhile we're discussing a scenario in which the enemy due to a significant advantage has total control of what goes in and out of the country which leads to starvation. Leningrad had Soviets outside the city, but in the scenario discussed the whole country is the city. There is no outside help coming unless its a very unlikely 11th hour allied intervention.
-Yes, the Iran-Iraq war was between roughly equally terrible opponents. But the war would have dragged on just the same had it been between roughly equally well-trained opponents. You are wrongly assuming that an increase in training only leads to an increase in offensive capability. A better trained opponent will not just be better in attacking, but also in stalling and stopping enemy advances and counterattacks.
This is what makes the Gulf war barely worth the term 'war'. It wasn't a war, it was a turkey shoot. Had the Iraqi army been equally matched with the US armed forces, the Gulf War would have lasted a whole lot longer, and the outcome would probably have been quite different. Again, because an increase in the quality of training and equipment also leads to an increase in defensive capabilities. I said this before, but taking the Gulf War as an example of modern warfare is like taking the battle of Blood River as an example of 19th century warfare. These kind of conflicts happen only when one side has a decisive technological advantage over the other. They are not typical of warfare between opponents on the same technological level.
-You are also giving way too much credence to air power. This isn't WW2 anymore where anti-air warfare is still in its infancy and almost entirely ineffective. Any aircraft that gets within range of a modern anti-air system is nothing but a very expensive target. Wars are not won by aircraft, you can win them only with boots (and wheels and threads, and preferably artillery as well) on the ground. Aircraft are a supporting element. Having air superiority is a lot less effective against a modern military than it was against armies such as that of WW2 or that of Iraq. Anti-air warfare has made huge advances since WW2. A modern-day tank company is almost as effective in destroying air targets as it is in destroying ground targets.
-Mass production of military equipment is very costly indeed. But that is no different now than it is in WW2. Before WW2, military equipment also had very low production runs (much lower for example than during the Cold War period). It was only when the war got going that military production was kicked into high gear. Mass production of military equipment will bankrupt the losing side of the war. But the winning side? Not so much. As the ancient saying goes: To the victor go the spoils.
-History isn't cyclical? Are you getting into philosophy here? Suffice to say there is a lot of people who believe history is cyclical. In fact, a belief in a linear history appears to be a typical modern Western idea that is not found in most other cultures (Shia Islam is a notable exception). Conditions change, yes. But do they truly change, or is it just the repetition of the same patterns over and over again with different actors? Take warfare for example. We mentioned the Gulf War, where one side has a big technological advantage over the other side and the battle is little more than a massacre. Is that truly different from the colonial conflicts of the past, or the wars of the Roman Empire against "barbarian" tribes? Is it truly different from any time in history when two technologically disparate societies came into conflict? Is it a linear progression, or just a repetition of the same pattern in different times with different actors?
Disciple of Fate wrote: - Well seeing as we haven't had a nuclear war calculating the chances are a bit hard. But again, there are so many world ending events you should focus on then. And I'm not talking about spending all our money in the here and now, I'm advocating spending that money on future problems that don't assume 99% of the people are dead. There are more pressing future issues for the next generations that that money is much better spent on. You can keep talking about short-sighted, but I call investing huge amounts of public money on 1 future out of a possible 1000000 short sighted.
Nobody is assuming 99% of the people will be dead but you. Going on the only available evidence we have, which is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a lot more people than 1% will survive, even without purpose-built shelters. And this is 1 future out of 10000000000 ones that actually is plausible. And potentially very destructive. Therefore we must be prepared for it.
Given how small the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were we have no real idea. But yes, saying 99% is an overstatement, so should we assume 70-80%, as around 50% died in Japan? And yes the other 999999 futures are also possible, with many overlapping, meanwhile nuclear war has zero overlap. Investment into other projects can do good in multiple futures.
But again, what should we prepare for, because there are a lot of events that could destroy human civilization. Super-volcanoes, asteroids etc. By your logic you should prepare for them all. I still believe that is an enormousness waste of resources better spent elsewhere. Besides, food stockpiles could possibly only give a false sense of security, if food production can't match the amount of survivors starvation will occur regardless.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - That really depends, the Dutch government is less well prepared than many people might think. Having abandoned most Cold War plans. As for those farmers, you have no idea about their actual capabilities without all that infrastructure. Just assuming they can continue on a smaller scale is a huge if. It isn't arcane or secret no, but its going to be a lot harder to learn when half the country is on fire and gone. Of course its not going to be the end of the world, but its going to be a lot harder than just dusting off and starting back up on a smaller scale. We have no clue how many farmers can actually make that shift or have sufficient seed stockpiles to just be able to do it alone.
- Loads? The oldest known skeleton in Europe is about 40k years old and at the edge of Europe. Current archeological theory that is up and coming says that it might have taken several thousands or even ten thousand for H Sapiens to establish themselves in Europe proper. Interesting discussion but drifting a bit far perhaps. Regardless, its true they have a group to survive in, but most people have exactly the same skills as that call center employee. How many experienced survivalists are there going to be on the average population? 1 out of a 1000 or 10000? They can't take care of all those people even if brought down to 1 in a 100 or even 50. Most people are going to be utterly useless beyond menial labor. The government to be able to do that right after a nuclear war would also need large or even huge amounts of stockliles of vehicles and equipment, staff and everything required at the ready. But unless all those people live in or really close to those bunkers they won't make it in time. So restoring government control alone is going to require a massive investment. Likely the government won't be in any position to provide immediate help to the survivors.
- Of course it could be done, but the comparison to Belarus is less relevant because the effects of a full out nuclear war would be far worse. Belarus still had functioning systems, a world to function in and the ability to ask for expert help. None of that is certain after a nuclear war, maybe you will get outside help and maybe you won't. But rebuilding will be far more time consuming and likely isn't going to bring you back to anywhere near the old level. It would be Belarus on steroids, with far more unforseeable problems.
True. It would take a very long time before the world would be built back up to the level of today, if ever. But the world would survive. And I think it is worth spending a bit of money now on helping that survival, just in the not all that unlikely case the worst does happen. Especially since stockpiles would also come in handy during other calamities such as natural disasters.
Ultimately, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Evidently, you do not think it is worth it, while I do. We probably should agree to disagree. This argument is getting long.
The world would survive yes, but the money involved isn't just a bit. To stockpile food and maintain it would run into the billions or trillions. Also natural disasters? If you just spend more money on improving response efforts by national governments that is a lot more cost effective than setting up food stockpiles all over the country in case of a natural disaster.
I never said we should prepare for all potential disasters. Just the ones which seem likely to happen, of which nuclear war sadly is one. And stockpiles will improve government response efforts, both in the case of nuclear war and in natural disasters.
-"Likely the government won't be in any position to provide immediate help to the survivors." Not if they aren't prepared, no.
-"Current archeological theory that is up and coming says that it might have taken several thousands or even ten thousand for H Sapiens to establish themselves in Europe proper." That is hardly up and coming theory. Yes, it took a long while before H. Sapiens was established in Europe (H. Sapiens is thought to have evolved between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago, and first enters Europe only about 50,000 years ago). But we know that they were firmly established across Europe by the time H. Neanderthalensis died out, which is about 40,000 years ago (remains from H. Sapiens dating to roughly this time have been discovered all over Europe from Italy to Britain to the Arctic), although they later disappeared again in much of the continent during the last glacial maximum. After the end of the last glacial maximum, re-population of Europe was very swift.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - We have seen decisive knockout punches in the opening phases of almost every recent war involving a major power. Applying overwhelming force as quickly as possible is the key to winning the opening phase. Skirmishing first gives away the advantage of a knockout punch. Also it was never about the winning side quickly ending it. Its about the losing side's highly unlikely chance to recover and regroup with modern equipment. Sure the losing side could drag it out, but realistically its not going anywhere. Both Iraq wars were over the moment they began. Iran-Iraq War has serious issues as a template of a modern war between well trained armies. Plus even taking into account WW1 and 2, there was no relief for the losing side, once those blockades were set up it was steadily downhill for the Central and Axis powers.
The Iran-Iraq war is far more realistic as a template for modern war than any other war, since it is the only war since the Korean war that has been fought between roughly equally matched opponents. Yes, their armies weren't well trained, but that was true for both sides. If both sides are well trained, that basically doesn't give an advantage to either side. The Iraq war barely was a war at all, and not at all a template for how a conflict between two major superpowers would unfold.
Yes it was between roughly equally terrible opponents. That's the issue with using it as a comparison, major powers have shown much better capabilities in modern war. Both sides weren't well trained, but the Iraqis had the advantage in training while the Iranians had it in equipment. Iran barely managed to ward off Iraq in the beginning due to their equipment advantage but didn't have the training to capitalize on their later advantage. If Iran had better training or Iraq more equipment it would have been over much faster.
So Iraq-Iran isn't a great template for major power wars, but the Gulf Wars are, because you can see a major power in an offensive capacity. Just because Iraq was weak doesn't detract from how the US planned and executed the war. Its unlikely that the US would change much in strategy, as a speedy initial strike is key to gaining the upper hand. We can expect both major powers to commit most of their strength in the opening phase to try gain the advantage as early as possible. Holding back your forces just opens your own army up to being destroyed piecemeal by a concentrated enemy offensive with larger forces.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - Bringing up stubborn and WW2 is unrealistic in todays world. Equipment production isn't possible on such a massive scale anymore.
Using WW2 as a template for what a modern war looks like isn't relevant. War has changed significantly since and inventing parameters to achieve the preferred outcome doesn't change the fact that mass production is no longer possible. Once you get in that hole all the winner has to do is keep on shovelling. Plus if everyone starves to death which is you argument for stockpiles, why not wait that few extra months? People who starved to death usually aren't so stubborn. If a country is losing and starving stockpiles only delay the inevitable.
I welcome you to come visit Uralvagonzavod. They have the infrastructure in place to churn out T-72 tanks by the bucketload. Modern military equipment is almost entirely mass production. It is easy to scale up such mass production, especially of simple weapon systems such as T-72 tanks, BMP-series vehicles, infantry weapons and Kamaz trucks. These things were literally designed to be produced on a massive scale for a massive war. Sure, complicated tech such as fifth-generation fighter jets or Armata tanks will be difficult to produce on similar massive scales, but large wars are not won with such weapons. They are too few to seriously affect the outcome of a large war. War actually has not changed from WW2. Almost everything that is around today was around in WW2 as well, with the notable exceptions of helicopters and advanced missile technology. Everything else in the arsenal of a modern military is basically just modernised versions of WW2 equipment. And as equipment has advanced, so have manufacturing techniques. There is no reason why we could not mass-produce modern military equipment on a far larger scale. All it would require is more resources and more money, both of which would not be an issue in wartime as both get funneled towards increased military production instead of civilian purposes.
Your argument regarding starvation does not make sense. It simply is not true. Just look at historical examples of starvation in wartime.
Yes, the T-72 production might prove useful in specific cases. But newer tank models don't have the same production runs. Plus tanks alone aren't going to win you the war. If you lose the air war then those tanks become very expensive targets. Plus its great that you can churn out cheaper tanks by the hundreds, but then training comes in and such. How long does getting a new crew trained up to battle readiness cost etc. That's all time you might not have, if your air force loses the war in the first few months those factories turn into scrap metal. The force you start the war with is going to be decisive, and using it to knock out as many of the enemy's forces as possible would be critical. A solid opening offensive would only lead to reinforcements being funneled in piecemeal if the main army is broken. This isn't WW2 where you can safely manufacture far away from the front, aircraft can reach every part of the globe now.
Problem is that mass production of military equipment is very costly and takes a long time to get going again, it would bankrupt or devastate most builders or the government after the war. Further you have to take into account that not all countries poses the resources required internally. That first year is going to play a critical role. But if you want to argue that modern equipment isn't going to be decisive to win the war I don't know what to say. A top of the line air superiority fighter outperforming the opponent's aircraft can have large consequences on the wider conflict for example. There is a reason countries invest heavily in modernization and equipment like this, if countries wouldn't think it would seriously affect the outcome why would they invest in it?
Historical examples do not carry as much value because history and especially warfare aren't cyclical. Conditions have changed immensely in 70 years let alone centuries. Were talking about a scenario where food stockpiles become useful to ward off starvation in wartime. This means the enemy has cut off all external food sources due to being able to do so with a stronger military from the initial clash. Either the enemy is preparing to invade or has the strength necessary to keep up the blockade while you have no power to break it, hence requiring those stockpiles. We're not talking about a slow back and forth between armies, were talking about a scenario in which one side can totally dominate the availability of food, that's not a normal historical scenario. The closest comparison would be Japan in 45, being completely strangled resource wise by the US submarine blockade, in 45 Japan was in no condition to ever be able to break that blockade. That is the scenario were looking at, vastly unbalanced levels of power between two combatants that there is no coming back from.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - Again, keep you fighting longer for what? Modern military equipment isn't designed for mass production. Its all designed to win the first phase. Stockpiles do nothing but delay the inevitable.
Soviet designers would like to have a word with you. Almost everything the Russian army currently uses was designed for mass production.
As to why keep fighting? Because you can win. It is not like the defenders of Leningrad were like 'Oh, we are starving. Let's surrender, why would we keep fighting?'. No, they chose to starve to death. And they kept fighting. And they won.
Both the Soviets and the US employed a level of mass production up to an extent when it was still affordable. This shifted in the 70's and 80's as can be seen by production numbers of newer equipment on both sides. For example, while the T-72 has been built in the tens of thousands the later models only reach several thousands. Planes, tanks and other big equipment actually have pretty similar production runs in the West and in the SU from the late 1970's onward.
Because you can't really. The Soviets had a manpower advantage, an industrial advantage and the advantage of geography. At least two out of these three factors can be negated by modern military equipment. The Germans had zero capabilities to bomb Soviet production, a lot of their equipment was still stationed in the West when it came to the air force and most of all they had done zero preparations beyond expecting to win soon. Meanwhile we're discussing a scenario in which the enemy due to a significant advantage has total control of what goes in and out of the country which leads to starvation. Leningrad had Soviets outside the city, but in the scenario discussed the whole country is the city. There is no outside help coming unless its a very unlikely 11th hour allied intervention.
-Yes, the Iran-Iraq war was between roughly equally terrible opponents. But the war would have dragged on just the same had it been between roughly equally well-trained opponents. You are wrongly assuming that an increase in training only leads to an increase in offensive capability. A better trained opponent will not just be better in attacking, but also in stalling and stopping enemy advances and counterattacks.
This is what makes the Gulf war barely worth the term 'war'. It wasn't a war, it was a turkey shoot. Had the Iraqi army been equally matched with the US armed forces, the Gulf War would have lasted a whole lot longer, and the outcome would probably have been quite different. Again, because an increase in the quality of training and equipment also leads to an increase in defensive capabilities. I said this before, but taking the Gulf War as an example of modern warfare is like taking the battle of Blood River as an example of 19th century warfare. These kind of conflicts happen only when one side has a decisive technological advantage over the other. They are not typical of warfare between opponents on the same technological level.
-You are also giving way too much credence to air power. This isn't WW2 anymore where anti-air warfare is still in its infancy and almost entirely ineffective. Any aircraft that gets within range of a modern anti-air system is nothing but a very expensive target. Wars are not won by aircraft, you can win them only with boots (and wheels and threads, and preferably artillery as well) on the ground. Aircraft are a supporting element. Having air superiority is a lot less effective against a modern military than it was against armies such as that of WW2 or that of Iraq. Anti-air warfare has made huge advances since WW2. A modern-day tank company is almost as effective in destroying air targets as it is in destroying ground targets.
-Mass production of military equipment is very costly indeed. But that is no different now than it is in WW2. Before WW2, military equipment also had very low production runs (much lower for example than during the Cold War period). It was only when the war got going that military production was kicked into high gear. Mass production of military equipment will bankrupt the losing side of the war. But the winning side? Not so much. As the ancient saying goes: To the victor go the spoils.
-History isn't cyclical? Are you getting into philosophy here? Suffice to say there is a lot of people who believe history is cyclical. In fact, a belief in a linear history appears to be a typical modern Western idea that is not found in most other cultures (Shia Islam is a notable exception). Conditions change, yes. But do they truly change, or is it just the repetition of the same patterns over and over again with different actors? Take warfare for example. We mentioned the Gulf War, where one side has a big technological advantage over the other side and the battle is little more than a massacre. Is that truly different from the colonial conflicts of the past, or the wars of the Roman Empire against "barbarian" tribes? Is it truly different from any time in history when two technologically disparate societies came into conflict? Is it a linear progression, or just a repetition of the same pattern in different times with different actors?
Would it though? What I'm saying is that training is going to cut it if equipment is equal and equipment is going to cut it when training is equal. Iraq's and Iran's performance was just terrible. But Iran could have capitalized on their early succes in gaining an equipment advantage if it had possessed better trained troops that didn't rely on human wave tactics. Its not unrealistic to assume that a better trained and commanded army than that of just post revolutionary Iran could have done better. Yeah, maybe if well trained modern armies clash and they lose roughly the same amount of equipment the war could go on for a longer time, but how unlikely is that? A more likely outcome is that when it comes to two roughly equal forces the one with the more modern equipment (mostly air force) will come out on top. It happened for Iran to some extent, with its air force crippling the Iraqi army's ability to advance. But that same air force could be turned on bombing factories an such so that equipment advantage becomes more unbalanced. Neither Iraq or Iran really had the capacity to produce tanks or aircraft, so the influence of production can't be seen.
Also previously you argued that "complicated tech such as fifth-generation fighter jets or Armata tanks will be difficult to produce on similar massive scales, but large wars are not won with such weapons". But now you say that "These kind of conflicts happen only when one side has a decisive technological advantage over the other."? Didn't Iraq have most of the equipment that has roughly stayed the same since WW2 like you said? So are wars won by a technological edge or not? You make contradictory statements on the effect of technology on the battlefield. The more technologically advanced air force could negate a production advantage if it gains air superiority.
Iraq was a turkey shoot, but you missed where I said it wasn't about Iraq being weak. Its about the planning and initial execution, not the quick defeat afterwards. The key to modern warfare in the Second Gulf War example is the overwhelming concentration of force in the first few hours to gain the upper hand. That is likely going to be what both major powers aim for in a war, so the results of who would apply that overwhelming concentration best would be clear in the first few weeks.
Just as anti-air has made advances so have counter measures. Its a constant race between offensive and defensive technology. To just state that anti-air has won the race is ludicrous. If anti-air has, why even bother with building large amounts of aircraft like the major powers do? Are all the militaries in the world run by idiots who haven't realized anti-air reigns supreme? Aircraft are an offensive element, not just a supportive element.
Before WW2 equipment had small production runs? Sometimes, but for good reason. Tanks and aircraft were very new relatively speaking, a lot of designing was going on and this was also in the period of one of the worst economic crisis. Yet some countries, primarily the Soviets and such still had production runs into the thousands. Those production runs were still larger than that of (post) Cold War equipment in a good number of cases when looked at numbers produced versus years of production. Yeah it really depends on what piece you're looking at and the speed at which they become obsolete was incredibly fast in the 1930's. As for the to the victors go the spoils, that might be different depending on the victor in the current international climate. The recent wars the West 'won' only ended up costing incredible amounts for negligible gains because the saying doesn't hold true for the West trying to uphold their normative standards. Plus look at Great Britain and France after WW1, the war absolutely crippled them economically even though they won, it was the beginning of the end for them as major powers and WW2 just cemented it. The reason the US did so well and to an extent the Soviet Union is because of the global political and economic shift towards the two new superpowers. So a victor that already has a sort of hegemony has a lot to lose even if they win. Now of course that depends entirely on who the two powers fighting would be in that context as neither or both might have that existing investment.
If history is cyclical that means you could intervene or even predict what would happen. But no, this isn't philosophy per say although the teaching of history as a profession touches a bit upon the philosophy of science (even though history is a humanities subject ). But yes, those conflicts really are different, different cultures, motivations etc etc. Just because those examples had big technological advantages doesn't mean you can project the pattern of technological advantage=win. Look at the Vietnam War or both the US and Soviet wars in Afghanistan. So many more factors can influence an outcome depending on morals, restraint and a host of others factors. But times and military technology change. Currently for interstate warfare it pays off to be prepared as best as possible for when a war breaks out versus relying on production because that production might be knocked out. But going to your Roman example, the Parthians were clearly less technologically advanced than the Romans in some obvious parts, yet the Parthians were able to resist the Romans. Its also a bit misleading to state that colonial conflicts provide clear evidence, as many if not most of those colonial conflicts were fought with native/indigenous allies that proved to be the key winning, its how the British won India, the Dutch Indonesia, the Spanish the Americas. To say its just the pattern repeating itself is too simplistic and falls into the human trap of always trying to look for patterns and seeing them even if objectively there are none, its because we want to create something familiar.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - Well seeing as we haven't had a nuclear war calculating the chances are a bit hard. But again, there are so many world ending events you should focus on then. And I'm not talking about spending all our money in the here and now, I'm advocating spending that money on future problems that don't assume 99% of the people are dead. There are more pressing future issues for the next generations that that money is much better spent on. You can keep talking about short-sighted, but I call investing huge amounts of public money on 1 future out of a possible 1000000 short sighted.
Nobody is assuming 99% of the people will be dead but you. Going on the only available evidence we have, which is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a lot more people than 1% will survive, even without purpose-built shelters. And this is 1 future out of 10000000000 ones that actually is plausible. And potentially very destructive. Therefore we must be prepared for it.
Given how small the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were we have no real idea. But yes, saying 99% is an overstatement, so should we assume 70-80%, as around 50% died in Japan? And yes the other 999999 futures are also possible, with many overlapping, meanwhile nuclear war has zero overlap. Investment into other projects can do good in multiple futures.
But again, what should we prepare for, because there are a lot of events that could destroy human civilization. Super-volcanoes, asteroids etc. By your logic you should prepare for them all. I still believe that is an enormousness waste of resources better spent elsewhere. Besides, food stockpiles could possibly only give a false sense of security, if food production can't match the amount of survivors starvation will occur regardless.
Disciple of Fate wrote: - That really depends, the Dutch government is less well prepared than many people might think. Having abandoned most Cold War plans. As for those farmers, you have no idea about their actual capabilities without all that infrastructure. Just assuming they can continue on a smaller scale is a huge if. It isn't arcane or secret no, but its going to be a lot harder to learn when half the country is on fire and gone. Of course its not going to be the end of the world, but its going to be a lot harder than just dusting off and starting back up on a smaller scale. We have no clue how many farmers can actually make that shift or have sufficient seed stockpiles to just be able to do it alone.
- Loads? The oldest known skeleton in Europe is about 40k years old and at the edge of Europe. Current archeological theory that is up and coming says that it might have taken several thousands or even ten thousand for H Sapiens to establish themselves in Europe proper. Interesting discussion but drifting a bit far perhaps. Regardless, its true they have a group to survive in, but most people have exactly the same skills as that call center employee. How many experienced survivalists are there going to be on the average population? 1 out of a 1000 or 10000? They can't take care of all those people even if brought down to 1 in a 100 or even 50. Most people are going to be utterly useless beyond menial labor. The government to be able to do that right after a nuclear war would also need large or even huge amounts of stockliles of vehicles and equipment, staff and everything required at the ready. But unless all those people live in or really close to those bunkers they won't make it in time. So restoring government control alone is going to require a massive investment. Likely the government won't be in any position to provide immediate help to the survivors.
- Of course it could be done, but the comparison to Belarus is less relevant because the effects of a full out nuclear war would be far worse. Belarus still had functioning systems, a world to function in and the ability to ask for expert help. None of that is certain after a nuclear war, maybe you will get outside help and maybe you won't. But rebuilding will be far more time consuming and likely isn't going to bring you back to anywhere near the old level. It would be Belarus on steroids, with far more unforseeable problems.
True. It would take a very long time before the world would be built back up to the level of today, if ever. But the world would survive. And I think it is worth spending a bit of money now on helping that survival, just in the not all that unlikely case the worst does happen. Especially since stockpiles would also come in handy during other calamities such as natural disasters.
Ultimately, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Evidently, you do not think it is worth it, while I do. We probably should agree to disagree. This argument is getting long.
The world would survive yes, but the money involved isn't just a bit. To stockpile food and maintain it would run into the billions or trillions. Also natural disasters? If you just spend more money on improving response efforts by national governments that is a lot more cost effective than setting up food stockpiles all over the country in case of a natural disaster.
I never said we should prepare for all potential disasters. Just the ones which seem likely to happen, of which nuclear war sadly is one. And stockpiles will improve government response efforts, both in the case of nuclear war and in natural disasters.
-"Likely the government won't be in any position to provide immediate help to the survivors." Not if they aren't prepared, no.
-"Current archeological theory that is up and coming says that it might have taken several thousands or even ten thousand for H Sapiens to establish themselves in Europe proper." That is hardly up and coming theory. Yes, it took a long while before H. Sapiens was established in Europe (H. Sapiens is thought to have evolved between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago, and first enters Europe only about 50,000 years ago). But we know that they were firmly established across Europe by the time H. Neanderthalensis died out, which is about 40,000 years ago (remains from H. Sapiens dating to roughly this time have been discovered all over Europe from Italy to Britain to the Arctic), although they later disappeared again in much of the continent during the last glacial maximum. After the end of the last glacial maximum, re-population of Europe was very swift.
Explain "likely to happen" though? How likely, is it more likely than an asteroid or something else? The problem with this is trying to quantify want can't really be quantified. It might be a 1 in a million or a 1 in billion chance, we don't know. But that is exactly the point, we don't know for many incredibly destructive possible event, so how do you decide which takes priority?
Also no, stockpiles don't improve government response efforts if the government is bad at responding in the first place. So if you're arguing for food stockpiles in the case of natural disasters its better to invest that money into training more rescue personnel, more equipment to rescue people such as helicopters etc. While giving them food is important, saving lives directly in the first days should take priority. While you can live without food for a few days, how long are you going to last trapped under a building or washed out to sea etc. So the preparation argument would see food stockpiles being quite low on the list as there are more critical response elements than food so to speak.
Well I was more referring to the theory about Neanderthal replacement with a longer transition period from Kolodny and Feldman from last October as the up and coming one, sorry I wrote that badly and vague which I sometimes tend to do. Its hard to prove that one but its pretty interesting nonetheless. As for the skeletons, as far as I'm aware the oldest is 40.000 years ago and the ones further inside Europe range from 40.000 to 30.000 years. But its been a while since I've done any trips into the archaeological field so I'm going to yield to your expertise on the matter. But if Kolodny's and Feldman's theory is credible that changes some dimensions of Neanderthal disappearance versus arrival of Homo Sapiens in larger numbers.
. It was a command post and they have recently restored it back to its authentic 1960's state with all kinds of old equipment. It is pretty neat.
hole like Krazy Kim's Police State Theme Park (fun for the whole family!) will be a threat if THAAD fails in an intercept, or a launch comes from a power that has no THAAD defensive coverage. Such an attack will come without sufficient warning for evacuation of a major city.
