Switch Theme:

False missle attack warning in Hawaii  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 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.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/01/15 22:02:53


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






I highly doubt most governments couldn't stockpile food and medicine.

but what im 1000% sure is they would fail miserably to properly distribute it.

more than likely if the sites become known there would probably be actual conflict in those kinds of places if an actual civilization fell.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/15 21:55:07


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in de
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'




Lubeck

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/15 21:55:13


 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 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 .

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/15 23:14:00


Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/15 23:40:04


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/16 00:21:56


Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:

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.

Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






lonestarr777 wrote:
 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.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 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.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 von Hohenstein wrote:
Both, russia and the US have enough nukes to do just that.


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.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in gb
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General




We'll find out soon enough eh.

 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".

I need to acquire plastic Skavenslaves, can you help?
I have a blog now, evidently. Featuring the Alternative Mordheim Model Megalist.

"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal 
   
Made in ie
Calculating Commissar




Frostgrave

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the plus side, at least the system works.


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.
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





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.

People getting trigger happy with alarm buttons?

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Herzlos wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the plus side, at least the system works.


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.
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

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.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

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?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 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.

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in gb
Calculating Commissar




Frostgrave

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.


 Kanluwen wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the plus side, at least the system works.


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.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/16 16:56:04


 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






KTG17 wrote:
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?


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Kanluwen wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the plus side, at least the system works.


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!

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






The wolf who cried kid had to cry a few more times than 2.

its probably going to be different for different people and or cultures probably.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

KTG17 wrote:

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...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Desubot wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/16 18:09:18


Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator




orem, Utah

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/16 18:45:05


are you going to keep talking about it, or do something already? 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






What uranium cores? depending on what kind it could be a half life of 70 years to 4.5 billion it looks like. according to google.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/16 18:46:43


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 soundwave591 wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
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.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 Kanluwen wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the plus side, at least the system works.


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.
   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 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.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/01/16 20:35:05


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 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.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 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.

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: