How far away do you need to be from DC to be safe from a nuclear attack?

[Anonymous]

I attended a conference on dirty bombs years ago. Lesson was not to try to escape but to get inside and into a basement or sub basement. As low as you can go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very glad I live in unfashionable flyover.

You’re going to have to survive with a bunch of MAGA lunatics running around. Good luck.

The MAGA people I see around me are all decent, capable, law abiding family people. I don't agree with their politics but some of you have a very warped perspective of Trump voters in flyover.

+1 and I am not a Trumper

+1 and not a Trumper either, but people like the PP above NEED to brand people who support MAGA as lunatics so it can justify their own vicious hatefulness. Makes them feel good about themselves.

Nope. MAGA actions speak for themselves.

Your schtick is getting worn out.

I didn’t vote for Trump, but I will also acknowledge we didn’t have 22 page thread about a possible Russian nuclear attack during his presidency, either.

I have a serious case of buyer’s remorse with Joe Biden. I now look at the Trump-era fondly. I feel awkward admitting it, because I hate being wrong. But that’s how I feel.

GMAFB. You are blaming Biden for this?

“I voted for Biden but…” Sure you did. Liar.

NP. Fact remains we didn't have a potential nuclear war looming over us when Trump was president. He took a strong stance against Putin and put sanctions on the pipeline being built between Russia and Europe and warned of Europeans becoming too energy dependent on Russia. He called out NATO for taking advantage of the US, which NATO was doing. There are many, many, many things I disagree with Donald Trump but much of his foreign policy was actually on target. Despite all this, Trump got pilloried in the presses. But had the Germans and other nations not been so short sighted and shut down their nuclear plants in exchange for becoming energy dependent on Russia, had all the NATO countries lived up to their military spending obligations, Putin wouldn't be thinking the West is weak and divided and invading Ukraine. It's not to Joe Biden's credit that he removed the sanctions Trump put on the Russian pipeline. Nor do I think it was wise to have all the US embassies fly BLM and rainbow flags in despotic regions. In case you hadn't noticed, both Russia and China have been increasingly dismissive and aggressive since Biden took office and it's not hard to see why they may be thinking the US is weak.

The goal for each NATO country to reach 2% of their GDP was for 2024. Considering 2024 hasn’t yet happened, you can’t really say they didn’t live up to their obligations. Also, Trump started to dismantle NATO and ruin our relationships with our allies. If one wants to make baseless claims like you are, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to make the excuse that the members who had yet to project the 2% goal weren’t motivated to do so because they were worried about the state of NATO’s future due to Trump’s destructible behavior. He said multiple times he’d like to pull out of NATO. When someone asked him if he would adhere to Article 5, undoubtedly the most important aspect of NATO, if an ally was attacked, he responded, “That’s a good question isn’t it? I don’t know, it’s something I need to consider. The fact that he even answered the question in that manner proves he doesn’t know $hit about foreign policy, or any policy really, at all whatsoever. It would render NATO useless. And for anything to work, aside from signed contracts, treaties, agreements, etc. one also needs to adhere to the honor code. We already know Trump doesn’t give a crap about the rule of law, so acting like he would follow any sort of honor code is a flipping joke. Would you support pulling out of NATO?? Because that’s seemingly what you’re implying.

Further, Putin thinks the West is weak and divided because he helped to make it to at way. You’re living in la-la land if you think this is just an opportunity born out of convenience rather than a deliberate action on Putin’s part. Also, this “weakness” talk everyone keeps spewing is getting tiring. If you think Trump showed any strength, well…HAHAHAHAHA. You may be dumber than he is! He threw a temper tantrum over losing an election and TO THIS DAY, he is still crying about it. In fact, the other day on Fox he told Laura Ingraham that the reason for the Russia-Ukraine crisis is because of “the rigged election”. He refused to go to Biden’s inauguration. Anytime he was criticized it was “fake news”. The press was “constantly out to get him” according to him because he couldn’t handle anything less than groveling and praise, let alone constructive criticism. He fired anyone in his administration who wasn’t “loyal” enough in his eyes. He’s poisoned the Republican Party and continues to do so anytime someone in the party finds a spine and decides rightfully to defend the constitution instead of the orange blob of flubber with a bad hairdo. He does all of this because HE.IS.WEAK. Make no mistake, there’s not a single strength that trump possesses.

What a joke. So Western Europe didn't want to fund their own defense because Trump might not follow through and defend them? Doesn't sound real brilliant.

Yes, Merkel, Macron and Johnson hated Trump. He declared that he would act in America's interest, rather than "lead from behind" those three like Obama did. Of course they hated him. But frankly, I totally agree that NATO does not serve our interests. We bear the cost of defending Europe, subsidize their welfare state lifestyles and they undercut that defense by making deals with Russia AND routinely opposing US interests elsewhere (Iran especially) for $$. We need to let the European Union fund their own defense. They have a larger population than we do and a GDP that is close to ours (and lots bigger than Russia's.) We get nothing from the deal except arms sales.

Oh, please. If you don’t understand that Trump acted in no one’s interest, ever, but his own, you have a sub 70 IQ.

This exactly. The low level of intelligence of some of these Trumpers amazes me.

Lol..you know that guy wrote that thinking he was being so clever and smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Scouts learn to be prepared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very glad I live in unfashionable flyover.

You’re going to have to survive with a bunch of MAGA lunatics running around. Good luck.

The MAGA people I see around me are all decent, capable, law abiding family people. I don't agree with their politics but some of you have a very warped perspective of Trump voters in flyover.

+1 and I am not a Trumper

+1 and not a Trumper either, but people like the PP above NEED to brand people who support MAGA as lunatics so it can justify their own vicious hatefulness. Makes them feel good about themselves.

Nope. MAGA actions speak for themselves.

Your schtick is getting worn out.

I didn’t vote for Trump, but I will also acknowledge we didn’t have 22 page thread about a possible Russian nuclear attack during his presidency, either.

I have a serious case of buyer’s remorse with Joe Biden. I now look at the Trump-era fondly. I feel awkward admitting it, because I hate being wrong. But that’s how I feel.

GMAFB. You are blaming Biden for this?

“I voted for Biden but…” Sure you did. Liar.

NP. Fact remains we didn't have a potential nuclear war looming over us when Trump was president. He took a strong stance against Putin and put sanctions on the pipeline being built between Russia and Europe and warned of Europeans becoming too energy dependent on Russia. He called out NATO for taking advantage of the US, which NATO was doing. There are many, many, many things I disagree with Donald Trump but much of his foreign policy was actually on target. Despite all this, Trump got pilloried in the presses. But had the Germans and other nations not been so short sighted and shut down their nuclear plants in exchange for becoming energy dependent on Russia, had all the NATO countries lived up to their military spending obligations, Putin wouldn't be thinking the West is weak and divided and invading Ukraine. It's not to Joe Biden's credit that he removed the sanctions Trump put on the Russian pipeline. Nor do I think it was wise to have all the US embassies fly BLM and rainbow flags in despotic regions. In case you hadn't noticed, both Russia and China have been increasingly dismissive and aggressive since Biden took office and it's not hard to see why they may be thinking the US is weak.

The goal for each NATO country to reach 2% of their GDP was for 2024. Considering 2024 hasn’t yet happened, you can’t really say they didn’t live up to their obligations. Also, Trump started to dismantle NATO and ruin our relationships with our allies. If one wants to make baseless claims like you are, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to make the excuse that the members who had yet to project the 2% goal weren’t motivated to do so because they were worried about the state of NATO’s future due to Trump’s destructible behavior. He said multiple times he’d like to pull out of NATO. When someone asked him if he would adhere to Article 5, undoubtedly the most important aspect of NATO, if an ally was attacked, he responded, “That’s a good question isn’t it? I don’t know, it’s something I need to consider. The fact that he even answered the question in that manner proves he doesn’t know $hit about foreign policy, or any policy really, at all whatsoever. It would render NATO useless. And for anything to work, aside from signed contracts, treaties, agreements, etc. one also needs to adhere to the honor code. We already know Trump doesn’t give a crap about the rule of law, so acting like he would follow any sort of honor code is a flipping joke. Would you support pulling out of NATO?? Because that’s seemingly what you’re implying.

Further, Putin thinks the West is weak and divided because he helped to make it to at way. You’re living in la-la land if you think this is just an opportunity born out of convenience rather than a deliberate action on Putin’s part. Also, this “weakness” talk everyone keeps spewing is getting tiring. If you think Trump showed any strength, well…HAHAHAHAHA. You may be dumber than he is! He threw a temper tantrum over losing an election and TO THIS DAY, he is still crying about it. In fact, the other day on Fox he told Laura Ingraham that the reason for the Russia-Ukraine crisis is because of “the rigged election”. He refused to go to Biden’s inauguration. Anytime he was criticized it was “fake news”. The press was “constantly out to get him” according to him because he couldn’t handle anything less than groveling and praise, let alone constructive criticism. He fired anyone in his administration who wasn’t “loyal” enough in his eyes. He’s poisoned the Republican Party and continues to do so anytime someone in the party finds a spine and decides rightfully to defend the constitution instead of the orange blob of flubber with a bad hairdo. He does all of this because HE.IS.WEAK. Make no mistake, there’s not a single strength that trump possesses.

What a joke. So Western Europe didn't want to fund their own defense because Trump might not follow through and defend them? Doesn't sound real brilliant.

Yes, Merkel, Macron and Johnson hated Trump. He declared that he would act in America's interest, rather than "lead from behind" those three like Obama did. Of course they hated him. But frankly, I totally agree that NATO does not serve our interests. We bear the cost of defending Europe, subsidize their welfare state lifestyles and they undercut that defense by making deals with Russia AND routinely opposing US interests elsewhere (Iran especially) for $$. We need to let the European Union fund their own defense. They have a larger population than we do and a GDP that is close to ours (and lots bigger than Russia's.) We get nothing from the deal except arms sales.

Oh, please. If you don’t understand that Trump acted in no one’s interest, ever, but his own, you have a sub 70 IQ.

Our country will NEVER be united again. We are both looking at the same events and interpreting them so differently. I see more fascist actions, by far, from the side that allows "Antifa," censorship, unequal justice based on political viewpoints, and the desire to totally and completely degrade and dehumanize the side they disagree with. I will give you a clue. My IQ is very high, I have a lot of education and the argument that I articulated above is much more sophisticated than the one you used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very glad I live in unfashionable flyover.

You’re going to have to survive with a bunch of MAGA lunatics running around. Good luck.

The MAGA people I see around me are all decent, capable, law abiding family people. I don't agree with their politics but some of you have a very warped perspective of Trump voters in flyover.

+1 and I am not a Trumper

+1 and not a Trumper either, but people like the PP above NEED to brand people who support MAGA as lunatics so it can justify their own vicious hatefulness. Makes them feel good about themselves.

Nope. MAGA actions speak for themselves.

Your schtick is getting worn out.

I didn’t vote for Trump, but I will also acknowledge we didn’t have 22 page thread about a possible Russian nuclear attack during his presidency, either.

I have a serious case of buyer’s remorse with Joe Biden. I now look at the Trump-era fondly. I feel awkward admitting it, because I hate being wrong. But that’s how I feel.

GMAFB. You are blaming Biden for this?

“I voted for Biden but…” Sure you did. Liar.

NP. Fact remains we didn't have a potential nuclear war looming over us when Trump was president. He took a strong stance against Putin and put sanctions on the pipeline being built between Russia and Europe and warned of Europeans becoming too energy dependent on Russia. He called out NATO for taking advantage of the US, which NATO was doing. There are many, many, many things I disagree with Donald Trump but much of his foreign policy was actually on target. Despite all this, Trump got pilloried in the presses. But had the Germans and other nations not been so short sighted and shut down their nuclear plants in exchange for becoming energy dependent on Russia, had all the NATO countries lived up to their military spending obligations, Putin wouldn't be thinking the West is weak and divided and invading Ukraine. It's not to Joe Biden's credit that he removed the sanctions Trump put on the Russian pipeline. Nor do I think it was wise to have all the US embassies fly BLM and rainbow flags in despotic regions. In case you hadn't noticed, both Russia and China have been increasingly dismissive and aggressive since Biden took office and it's not hard to see why they may be thinking the US is weak.

The goal for each NATO country to reach 2% of their GDP was for 2024. Considering 2024 hasn’t yet happened, you can’t really say they didn’t live up to their obligations. Also, Trump started to dismantle NATO and ruin our relationships with our allies. If one wants to make baseless claims like you are, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to make the excuse that the members who had yet to project the 2% goal weren’t motivated to do so because they were worried about the state of NATO’s future due to Trump’s destructible behavior. He said multiple times he’d like to pull out of NATO. When someone asked him if he would adhere to Article 5, undoubtedly the most important aspect of NATO, if an ally was attacked, he responded, “That’s a good question isn’t it? I don’t know, it’s something I need to consider. The fact that he even answered the question in that manner proves he doesn’t know $hit about foreign policy, or any policy really, at all whatsoever. It would render NATO useless. And for anything to work, aside from signed contracts, treaties, agreements, etc. one also needs to adhere to the honor code. We already know Trump doesn’t give a crap about the rule of law, so acting like he would follow any sort of honor code is a flipping joke. Would you support pulling out of NATO?? Because that’s seemingly what you’re implying.

Further, Putin thinks the West is weak and divided because he helped to make it to at way. You’re living in la-la land if you think this is just an opportunity born out of convenience rather than a deliberate action on Putin’s part. Also, this “weakness” talk everyone keeps spewing is getting tiring. If you think Trump showed any strength, well…HAHAHAHAHA. You may be dumber than he is! He threw a temper tantrum over losing an election and TO THIS DAY, he is still crying about it. In fact, the other day on Fox he told Laura Ingraham that the reason for the Russia-Ukraine crisis is because of “the rigged election”. He refused to go to Biden’s inauguration. Anytime he was criticized it was “fake news”. The press was “constantly out to get him” according to him because he couldn’t handle anything less than groveling and praise, let alone constructive criticism. He fired anyone in his administration who wasn’t “loyal” enough in his eyes. He’s poisoned the Republican Party and continues to do so anytime someone in the party finds a spine and decides rightfully to defend the constitution instead of the orange blob of flubber with a bad hairdo. He does all of this because HE.IS.WEAK. Make no mistake, there’s not a single strength that trump possesses.

What a joke. So Western Europe didn't want to fund their own defense because Trump might not follow through and defend them? Doesn't sound real brilliant.

Yes, Merkel, Macron and Johnson hated Trump. He declared that he would act in America's interest, rather than "lead from behind" those three like Obama did. Of course they hated him. But frankly, I totally agree that NATO does not serve our interests. We bear the cost of defending Europe, subsidize their welfare state lifestyles and they undercut that defense by making deals with Russia AND routinely opposing US interests elsewhere (Iran especially) for $$. We need to let the European Union fund their own defense. They have a larger population than we do and a GDP that is close to ours (and lots bigger than Russia's.) We get nothing from the deal except arms sales.

Oh, please. If you don’t understand that Trump acted in no one’s interest, ever, but his own, you have a sub 70 IQ.

Our country will NEVER be united again. We are both looking at the same events and interpreting them so differently. I see more fascist actions, by far, from the side that allows "Antifa," censorship, unequal justice based on political viewpoints, and the desire to totally and completely degrade and dehumanize the side they disagree with. I will give you a clue. My IQ is very high, I have a lot of education and the argument that I articulated above is much more sophisticated than the one you used.

In light of your claims, perhaps you could provide cites for them. Without, they are simply accusations, especially in light of 1/6.

[Anonymous]

Anyone read or see "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy? I'm going to sit tight right here in the blast zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one of the most insane threads I've ever read on DCUM.

All you paranoid folk must know nothing about nuclear war!!

Mutually Assured Destruction means just that. No one will survive. The planet will not survive. Everything and everyone on the planet will die.

Sorry, but that’s just not true. Lots of people will still survive. The planet will absolutely survive. The most dangerous radioactive materials in fallout are essentially gone after about 4-8 weeks. A few types of long lasting isotopes will remain but they aren’t nearly as radioactive as the other materials in fallout. You can read about this stuff on wiki. I did a lot of reading about this stuff last night. The radiation is very high in the first few days, then starts to reduce quickly. There’s a mathematical formula for it called the 7-10 rule. Google it.

Where did you read this?

A large scale nuclear attack between the USA and Russia would mean a nuclear winter that would kill most of the human race. If that wasn’t in the materials you read, they aren’t reliable. Period.

Sorry. You’re misinformed. Physics just doesn’t work out that way. Nuclear bombs aren’t magic. They’re just bombs - with some interesting side effects that subside on an entirely predictable mathematic timetable. 4-8 weeks is entirely correct in terms of fallout. Iodine 131, Cesium 137 and Strontium 90 require more time but are produced in far smaller quantities relative to the more energetic isotopes produced in a fission cycle, which are the primary dangers from fallout. Localized neutron activation in otherwise stable elements is another source of intermediate length contamination, but it is very localized, confined to the area of neutron flux at the moment of the fission/fusion cycle.

“Nuclear winter” was a term created by Carl Sagan and embraced by Hollywood script writers. It has no basis in reality. A large scale exchange would put enough soot, smoke and dust into the air to cloud skies for a short time, but that’s all. Many volcanic eruptions in the last millennia have put far more ash into the atmosphere than every nuclear weapon on earth possibly could.

Okay, good luck with that. Enjoy the post apocalyptic hellscape following large scale nuclear war between us and Putin. You’re quite welcome to my share of the canned foods, I hope not to survive.

DP

Stay healthy and in good shape. I plan on surviving, and I might need to eat you at some point. Which I absolutely would (after humanely killing you, of course)

I plan on eating trumpers. They’re fat and will keep alive for a long time. I’ll rig a snare trap and bait it with a red MAGA hat. They’ll reach down to pick it up and I’ll catch them in the snare. Then I’ll club them in the head and cut them up and cook them. Dinner at 8!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one of the most insane threads I've ever read on DCUM.

All you paranoid folk must know nothing about nuclear war!!

Mutually Assured Destruction means just that. No one will survive. The planet will not survive. Everything and everyone on the planet will die.

Sorry, but that’s just not true. Lots of people will still survive. The planet will absolutely survive. The most dangerous radioactive materials in fallout are essentially gone after about 4-8 weeks. A few types of long lasting isotopes will remain but they aren’t nearly as radioactive as the other materials in fallout. You can read about this stuff on wiki. I did a lot of reading about this stuff last night. The radiation is very high in the first few days, then starts to reduce quickly. There’s a mathematical formula for it called the 7-10 rule. Google it.

I love you both. I would happily take a humane bullet to the head. You are welcome to my body.

Where did you read this?

A large scale nuclear attack between the USA and Russia would mean a nuclear winter that would kill most of the human race. If that wasn’t in the materials you read, they aren’t reliable. Period.

Sorry. You’re misinformed. Physics just doesn’t work out that way. Nuclear bombs aren’t magic. They’re just bombs - with some interesting side effects that subside on an entirely predictable mathematic timetable. 4-8 weeks is entirely correct in terms of fallout. Iodine 131, Cesium 137 and Strontium 90 require more time but are produced in far smaller quantities relative to the more energetic isotopes produced in a fission cycle, which are the primary dangers from fallout. Localized neutron activation in otherwise stable elements is another source of intermediate length contamination, but it is very localized, confined to the area of neutron flux at the moment of the fission/fusion cycle.

“Nuclear winter” was a term created by Carl Sagan and embraced by Hollywood script writers. It has no basis in reality. A large scale exchange would put enough soot, smoke and dust into the air to cloud skies for a short time, but that’s all. Many volcanic eruptions in the last millennia have put far more ash into the atmosphere than every nuclear weapon on earth possibly could.

Okay, good luck with that. Enjoy the post apocalyptic hellscape following large scale nuclear war between us and Putin. You’re quite welcome to my share of the canned foods, I hope not to survive.

DP

Stay healthy and in good shape. I plan on surviving, and I might need to eat you at some point. Which I absolutely would (after humanely killing you, of course)

I plan on eating trumpers. They’re fat and will keep alive for a long time. I’ll rig a snare trap and bait it with a red MAGA hat. They’ll reach down to pick it up and I’ll catch them in the snare. Then I’ll club them in the head and cut them up and cook them. Dinner at 8!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one of the most insane threads I've ever read on DCUM.

All you paranoid folk must know nothing about nuclear war!!

Mutually Assured Destruction means just that. No one will survive. The planet will not survive. Everything and everyone on the planet will die.

Sorry, but that’s just not true. Lots of people will still survive. The planet will absolutely survive. The most dangerous radioactive materials in fallout are essentially gone after about 4-8 weeks. A few types of long lasting isotopes will remain but they aren’t nearly as radioactive as the other materials in fallout. You can read about this stuff on wiki. I did a lot of reading about this stuff last night. The radiation is very high in the first few days, then starts to reduce quickly. There’s a mathematical formula for it called the 7-10 rule. Google it.

Where did you read this?

A large scale nuclear attack between the USA and Russia would mean a nuclear winter that would kill most of the human race. If that wasn’t in the materials you read, they aren’t reliable. Period.

Sorry. You’re misinformed. Physics just doesn’t work out that way. Nuclear bombs aren’t magic. They’re just bombs - with some interesting side effects that subside on an entirely predictable mathematic timetable. 4-8 weeks is entirely correct in terms of fallout. Iodine 131, Cesium 137 and Strontium 90 require more time but are produced in far smaller quantities relative to the more energetic isotopes produced in a fission cycle, which are the primary dangers from fallout. Localized neutron activation in otherwise stable elements is another source of intermediate length contamination, but it is very localized, confined to the area of neutron flux at the moment of the fission/fusion cycle.

“Nuclear winter” was a term created by Carl Sagan and embraced by Hollywood script writers. It has no basis in reality. A large scale exchange would put enough soot, smoke and dust into the air to cloud skies for a short time, but that’s all. Many volcanic eruptions in the last millennia have put far more ash into the atmosphere than every nuclear weapon on earth possibly could.

Okay, good luck with that. Enjoy the post apocalyptic hellscape following large scale nuclear war between us and Putin. You’re quite welcome to my share of the canned foods, I hope not to survive.

DP

Stay healthy and in good shape. I plan on surviving, and I might need to eat you at some point. Which I absolutely would (after humanely killing you, of course)

I plan on eating trumpers. They’re fat and will keep alive for a long time. I’ll rig a snare trap and bait it with a red MAGA hat. They’ll reach down to pick it up and I’ll catch them in the snare. Then I’ll club them in the head and cut them up and cook them. Dinner at 8!

Coexist. And what better time to coexist than during nuclear winter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one of the most insane threads I've ever read on DCUM.

All you paranoid folk must know nothing about nuclear war!!

Mutually Assured Destruction means just that. No one will survive. The planet will not survive. Everything and everyone on the planet will die.

Sorry, but that’s just not true. Lots of people will still survive. The planet will absolutely survive. The most dangerous radioactive materials in fallout are essentially gone after about 4-8 weeks. A few types of long lasting isotopes will remain but they aren’t nearly as radioactive as the other materials in fallout. You can read about this stuff on wiki. I did a lot of reading about this stuff last night. The radiation is very high in the first few days, then starts to reduce quickly. There’s a mathematical formula for it called the 7-10 rule. Google it.

Where did you read this?

A large scale nuclear attack between the USA and Russia would mean a nuclear winter that would kill most of the human race. If that wasn’t in the materials you read, they aren’t reliable. Period.

Sorry. You’re misinformed. Physics just doesn’t work out that way. Nuclear bombs aren’t magic. They’re just bombs - with some interesting side effects that subside on an entirely predictable mathematic timetable. 4-8 weeks is entirely correct in terms of fallout. Iodine 131, Cesium 137 and Strontium 90 require more time but are produced in far smaller quantities relative to the more energetic isotopes produced in a fission cycle, which are the primary dangers from fallout. Localized neutron activation in otherwise stable elements is another source of intermediate length contamination, but it is very localized, confined to the area of neutron flux at the moment of the fission/fusion cycle.

“Nuclear winter” was a term created by Carl Sagan and embraced by Hollywood script writers. It has no basis in reality. A large scale exchange would put enough soot, smoke and dust into the air to cloud skies for a short time, but that’s all. Many volcanic eruptions in the last millennia have put far more ash into the atmosphere than every nuclear weapon on earth possibly could.

Okay, good luck with that. Enjoy the post apocalyptic hellscape following large scale nuclear war between us and Putin. You’re quite welcome to my share of the canned foods, I hope not to survive.

DP

Stay healthy and in good shape. I plan on surviving, and I might need to eat you at some point. Which I absolutely would (after humanely killing you, of course)

I plan on eating trumpers. They’re fat and will keep alive for a long time. I’ll rig a snare trap and bait it with a red MAGA hat. They’ll reach down to pick it up and I’ll catch them in the snare. Then I’ll club them in the head and cut them up and cook them. Dinner at 8!

Aren't they poisoned with pool chemicals? And some sort of brain-eating disease?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one of the most insane threads I've ever read on DCUM.

All you paranoid folk must know nothing about nuclear war!!

Mutually Assured Destruction means just that. No one will survive. The planet will not survive. Everything and everyone on the planet will die.

Sorry, but that’s just not true. Lots of people will still survive. The planet will absolutely survive. The most dangerous radioactive materials in fallout are essentially gone after about 4-8 weeks. A few types of long lasting isotopes will remain but they aren’t nearly as radioactive as the other materials in fallout. You can read about this stuff on wiki. I did a lot of reading about this stuff last night. The radiation is very high in the first few days, then starts to reduce quickly. There’s a mathematical formula for it called the 7-10 rule. Google it.

Where did you read this?

A large scale nuclear attack between the USA and Russia would mean a nuclear winter that would kill most of the human race. If that wasn’t in the materials you read, they aren’t reliable. Period.

Sorry. You’re misinformed. Physics just doesn’t work out that way. Nuclear bombs aren’t magic. They’re just bombs - with some interesting side effects that subside on an entirely predictable mathematic timetable. 4-8 weeks is entirely correct in terms of fallout. Iodine 131, Cesium 137 and Strontium 90 require more time but are produced in far smaller quantities relative to the more energetic isotopes produced in a fission cycle, which are the primary dangers from fallout. Localized neutron activation in otherwise stable elements is another source of intermediate length contamination, but it is very localized, confined to the area of neutron flux at the moment of the fission/fusion cycle.

“Nuclear winter” was a term created by Carl Sagan and embraced by Hollywood script writers. It has no basis in reality. A large scale exchange would put enough soot, smoke and dust into the air to cloud skies for a short time, but that’s all. Many volcanic eruptions in the last millennia have put far more ash into the atmosphere than every nuclear weapon on earth possibly could.

Okay, good luck with that. Enjoy the post apocalyptic hellscape following large scale nuclear war between us and Putin. You’re quite welcome to my share of the canned foods, I hope not to survive.

DP

Stay healthy and in good shape. I plan on surviving, and I might need to eat you at some point. Which I absolutely would (after humanely killing you, of course)

I plan on eating trumpers. They’re fat and will keep alive for a long time. I’ll rig a snare trap and bait it with a red MAGA hat. They’ll reach down to pick it up and I’ll catch them in the snare. Then I’ll club them in the head and cut them up and cook them. Dinner at 8!

That doesn't sound very vegan.

[Anonymous]

eww. You are what you eat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I attended a conference on dirty bombs years ago. Lesson was not to try to escape but to get inside and into a basement or sub basement. As low as you can go.

The radiation hazard from IRD’s (dirty bombs) is a LOT more dangerous and persistent than the radiological hazards created by the fallout from a nuclear weapon.

The blast damage is much, much smaller with an IRD, but the contamination dangers are far longer-lasting because of the types of isotopes likely used for dirty bombs.


If a nuclear weapon was detonated over your neighborhood, there would be obviously be massive destruction from the blast. But after about 6-8 weeks, the danger of radiation will have largely subsided, except for a few longer lasting isotopes, which themselves have longer half-lives, but generally emit lower amounts of radiation (because their half-lives are so long).

On the other hand, a dirty bomb would do very little physical damage outside of the immediate area of the explosion (think “car bomb”) but the contamination would last for decades or centuries, not mere weeks.

[Anonymous]

I am not eating a MAGA. No way am I ingesting that karma. Plus, my cholesterol is already borderline. I don’t need all that fat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not eating a MAGA. No way am I ingesting that karma. Plus, my cholesterol is already borderline. I don’t need all that fat.

Plus, they are full of crap. Yuck.