The Day After

What would actually happen after a nuclear war? The world and the US have been nuked to shit, how does life go on after that? Does the goverment have a plan? How does it retain control of whats left of the nation? Would this hypothetical war be continued? How does anyone move on after the event?

Tbh I've always thought it would be like Fallout, small communities dot the wasteland and the survivors try to scrape by on what they can, factions arise, remnants of the goverment or army try to regain control of what's not really their's abymore, and a new world is born without or the fantasy elements of course. What do you think would occur?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse
nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?t=1bcac8b56072b4d24dbc494bd95686a4
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Humanity would be about as fucked as we have ever been fucked. It really depends on the nations involved though. If say North Korea and China got into it for example, NK would be a giant crater and the single nuke that NK maybe has would go off course and hit Japan probably.

If any of the major nations fought a nuclear war with each other we would be talking life changing alterations to climate, much less the direct devastation caused by the blasts. We're talking thousands of nukes here.

>tfw born too late to fight for Caesar
>tfw born to early to fight for Caesar

As said there are a lot of variables that could lead to vastly different outcomes. If you are talking about all the nuclear-equipped nations releasing their entire arsenals at once it would be pretty bleak.

Hundreds of millions of people would die in the initial bombing, and potentially hundred of millions or even billions more would die off in the following weeks due to radiation and starvation, modern H-bombs don't leave long-term radiation like older A-bombs do so it would fortunately be over rather quickly.
Things would quickly get worse though, the firestorms inevitably raging in every major city on earth would deposit mass amounts of ash into the planet's atmosphere, creating a nuclear winter that could potentially last up to a decade or two, this would kill almost all plant and animal life on earth. Basically the Earth would be completely fucked unless large scale terraforming was an option.

This is just worse case scenario though, it's completely plausible that only the northern hemisphere would sustain lasting damage and that the southern nations (Australia, Brazil, India) would keep on chugging.

The closest thing to a real answer is to look at what happened to Hiroshima and Nagaski, the only cities in real-life to ever actually be nuked. Now, it must be understand that the bombs dropped on those cities were absolutely puny compared to what modern nukes are capable of. But they still work as demonstrations of what the results of a nuclear war would be on a smaller scale.

The thing is they were part of an otherwise un-nuked country that helped them, which itself was receiving strong support from a foreign power.

I think OP is wondering what would happen if all civilization on Earth was nuked into the stone age.

To my understanding, the nukes in the Fallout universe never actually really progressed into the megaton range, to quote the wiki
>An average strategic warhead in 2077 (with a few exceptions, such as the weapons which fell on Washington D.C.) had a yield of about 200-750 kilotons, but with a massive increase in radioactive fallout in place of thermal shock, much like a neutron bomb in our own world.

So it's not really comparable to what would happen in real life. If any communities did somehow manage to survive though, it would probably mimic Fallout an small city-states would form around warlords

In the event of a nuclear war, I wouldn't be surprised if India and Pakistan took the opportunity to nuke each other.

If the war hits all civilizations, then that's it, we're done, game over.

The only way to survive is to be far away from targeted areas. Very few places on Earth are truly self-sufficient and in other places, the knowledge required for primitive survival has simply been lost. And while those skills may be possible to re-learn (especially with the help of books) it might be impossible to apply them. For example, if the plants die from radiation, then knowing how to plant a vegetable garden will do you know good unless you can find a way to remove radiation from the soil. Or in many cases survival might technically be possible, but the potential survivors would be so psychologically devastated that they simply wouldn't be able to give a shit. DO NOT under-estimate the shell shock effect from suddenly losing your entire civilization in the span of less than 12 hours.

So basically Fallout then.

Civilization only survives in dribs and drabs learned by survivors either through education or pure trial and error.

Not quite like fallout unless there is a total destruction of the chain of command. Whatever parts of the government still remain intact would be doing the absolute best to keep everything together. The entire country would be under military rule, and the President would essentially be a dictator if he is still alive. And if he isn't, the whoever is the highest ranking member of the military still alive would be in charge. This situation would continue for years, possibly decades depending on the extent of the damage.

>firestorms in cities made of metal and concrete

>What would actually happen after a nuclear war?
Recovery operations.

>The world and the US have been nuked to shit, how does life go on after that?
With marginal more difficulty.

>Does the goverment have a plan?
Yes

>How does it retain control of whats left of the nation?
They would control the resources that would enable recovery operations.
Legal procedure like the "Other than Part D" Documents would give the surviving government broad powers to undertake recovery operations.

>Would this hypothetical war be continued?
If it is needed and possible, yes.

>How does anyone move on after the event?
Slowly.

>If any of the major nations fought a nuclear war with each other we would be talking life changing alterations to climate,
Very unlikely.

>Hundreds of millions of people would die in the initial bombing,
Unlikely, but possible.
Likely numbers are 40 to 50 million at 90 days as a median.

>and potentially hundred of millions or even billions more would die off in the following weeks due to radiation and starvation,
Probably not as many here either.

>Things would quickly get worse though, the firestorms inevitably raging in every major city on earth would deposit mass amounts of ash into the planet's atmosphere, creating a nuclear winter that could potentially last up to a decade or two, this would kill almost all plant and animal life on earth. Basically the Earth would be completely fucked unless large scale terraforming was an option.

Nuclear winter studies are very flawed.
The reasons these studies fail to prove their case is because they all fail to account for the following issues.

1) In the studies, you have one warhead assigned to an urban area, detonated at an altitude designed to maximize thermal effects.

The reality is that the most likely targets in a first strike will be the strategic forces of your opponent. These are located, for the most part far from urban areas.

In addition, even those targets that are in urban areas are not targeted to maximize thermal effects, but rather blast effects.

Also, most targets will get multiple warheads aimed at them. So if you have 100 warheads, that not 100 targets.

2) Thermal effects are magnified based on improper interpretations of Hiroshima. Post war testing showed that materials will char and smoke due to the thermal effects, with actually attenuates the effect as more smoke and charring occurs. See pic related. The smoke is shielding the building.

3) The studies fail to account for modern building materials and codes in place in much of the world.

All this adds up to show that firestorms are possible, but unlikely, and if you don't have widespread firestorms, you wont have nuclear winter.

>So it's not really comparable to what would happen in real life
That range is typical for the vast majority of modern nuclear weapons.

>. Very few places on Earth are truly self-sufficient and in other places,
Lots of places that would be unaffected by the blast would be self sufficient.

>the knowledge required for primitive survival has simply been lost.
It will not be needed.

>And while those skills may be possible to re-learn (especially with the help of books) it might be impossible to apply them. For example, if the plants die from radiation, then knowing how to plant a vegetable garden will do you know good unless you can find a way to remove radiation from the soil.
Thats not really a thing. While some radiation will linger, it will not be harmful after a few weeks or months except in areas directly near a surface burst.

>Or in many cases survival might technically be possible, but the potential survivors would be so psychologically devastated that they simply wouldn't be able to give a shit. DO NOT under-estimate the shell shock effect from suddenly losing your entire civilization in the span of less than 12 hours.
Few civilizations would be outright destroyed.

>Fallout
Is not a good resource for nuclear weapons effects information.

If you would like to know more, here is a reading list.
On Thermonuclear War By Herman Kahn
On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century by Jeffrey Larsen and Kerry Kartchner
The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, Third Edition by Lawrence Freedman
Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces by Pavel Podvig
Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age by Francis J. Gavin
Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb by Feroz Khan
Prevention, Pre-emption and the Nuclear Option: From Bush to Obama by Aiden Warren
Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Lessons from the Cold War for a New Era of Strategic Piracy by Thérèse Delpech
Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy by Charles L. Glaser
Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict by Vipin Narang
Building the H Bomb: A Personal History By Kenneth W Ford

>nuclear silos in Bumfuck Nowhere get ruined
>maybe a few strategic cities
>EMP does fuck all since the fact majority of electronics are shielded today
>Rule of 7 goes into play for the areas that were nuked because fallout is something that modern nuclear weapons are designed to avoid in order to maximize blast capability
>???
>Everything goes back to relative normal with a few decades
As much as I want something like the Fallout Universe to exist and be a part of, it's simply not going to happen.

I just want you to know that I fully respect the wonderful city that is New Orleans.

>Wanting to be part of the shithole that is the Fallout universe

But why?

I don't want to blog about it, but here's the basic gist of it

>rabid anticommunist
>love the Western frontier and death of the frontier trope
>retrofuturist/atompunk aesthetic
>listen to a lot of late 50's-mid 60's tunes because I spent a lot of time with my grandparents growing up since they lived next door
>live in rural America with a rural lifestyle so ultimately all that would change is that I couldn't shitpost on Tibetan Banner Painting forum

You know that humans in small communities would help eachother, right? Everyone sharing the fruits of their labour. Selfish sociopaths would be ostricized immediately, basically a death sentence
Rulers might not even arise for a generation or two

In practice the military would be running the entire country, or whatever is left of it.

Sorry, but nuclear war does not mean your minarchist utopia suddenly becomes real. Quite the opposite, actually.

>You know that humans in small communities would help eachother, right? Everyone sharing the fruits of their labour
Communitarian =! communist

>Rulers might not even arise for a generation or two
That's some brilliant delusion you've cooked up.

That's... not antithetical to anything I've said.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse

I imagine it would be like this, the end of an era but not the end of the world.

>nothing would change

Is that still going to be your opinion when a large band of raiders rolls into your community, burns it to the ground, rapes you and puts your head on a spike?

It's 2016 user. The bombs aren't going to fall for ~61 years.

Threads is a good movie on this. The biggest killer ultimately will be the collapse in infrastructure and trade that makes large urban centers possible.

In depends greatly on the country in question though places like the US would be uniquly suited to survive such a event given their large pool of resources and decentralised government.

In countries like that the governments from the intact regions would be able to reassert control

Should there be a great collapse we are pretty fucked becaause we already extracted all the ressources you can fetch with lowtech.

I dont think we could start again from scratch that easily and if then with much more violent and scarcity based populations.

Ukrainians will rule.

As an Australian, I like to think we'd be mostly okay. Primary industries shouldn't be effected too badly, if at all. Infrastructure damage I imagine would also be minimal.
Rebuilding the government shouldn't be overly difficult either due to the politically apathetic nature of Australians.

It mostly depends on where you get your food. If you grow your own food maybe you can survive. Otherwise you're going to starve to death.

...

What does that have to do with those posts? Did I miss something?

>what are plastics

It's just very important that we respect the vibrant culture and history of New Orleans. He knows a lot of things which are very important, and without him we would never be able to have any worthwhile threads on nukes ever again. We never want him to leave us. There is no need for further questions.

Who the fuck are you talking about and what does it have to do with Little Haiti, I mean New Orleans?

>there are no combustible materials in cities

nuclear holocaust is not that scary.
just a bunch of urban city nigger, spics, and jews getting abolished while white farmers take over and rebuild the country.

the fallout doesn't even last that long if properly treated, plus we would not have to worry about invaders because whoever nuked us (Russia, China, Iran) will be more BTFO because we have 3x the nuclear arsenal as Russia

Threads is propaganda designed to scare the shit out of kids and get them to all run out and join the CND.

I find it odd that map doesn't have whiteman afb as a target

Patrolling would make me wish for a nuclear winter.

You mean just like how people in New Orleans helped each other out after Katrina?

The beautiful world of Nausicaa. can't wait

Because the map is bullshit.

What the fuck is in Montana, North Dakota and Greater Kansas City area?

Nuclear missiles

And here's a better map from /k/'s nuke guy
nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?t=1bcac8b56072b4d24dbc494bd95686a4

Well I assume they're trying to blast Cheyenne Mountain the HQ of NORAD.

Spotted the the climate change denier and the nuclear winter denier


Got em

Get out of here stalker.

Rape. Rape. Rape. And a whole lotta more Rape.

is there a map like this but for the entire world? Would Canada get nuked? What about Spain after it joined NATO?

America will finally reach libertarian paradise

>As an Australian, I like to think we'd be mostly okay.

Those are launch sites, the strategy would basically be to blanket the area with ground bursts to make sure they don't keep firing

Assuming enough people would survive and assuming the environment wouldn't be fucking unlivable (depends on the scale of the nuclear war), it would go back to normal fairly quickly. I've read some great Game Theory study on this shit that I can't find right now, but basically all your Mad Maxes and Fallouts and scenarios where we magically descend into medieval warlordism forever, are one hundred percent horeshit.

kek

I don't deny Climate change.

I just ask that research on nuclear winter be done with some resemblance to the real factors that apply to it.

>strategy would basically be to blanket the area with ground bursts to make sure they don't keep firing
The strategy is to hit the individual silos to destroy the weapons before they take off, or while they are just leaving the silos.

>large band of raiders rolls into your community, burns it to the ground, rapes you and puts your head on a spike?
They'd just get shot. Raiding nomads in history got fucking slaughtered unless they could find unarmed communities to attack.

>tfw live in coastal MS
>tfw live n a likely target zone
>if we're not killed by fallout, we still have the threat of high racial diversity creating potential tension
>nignogs vs whites vs hispanics vs chingchongs
>besides that, we'd have fucking mirelurks to deal with
>irradiated crab for dinner
>every night
at least we could potentially revive the seafood industry after the war

>Forever

Warlords are really only prominent in Fallout in the first generation after the bombs, after that, developed nation-states, such as the NCR, begin to take form.

Fuck the east coast though.

>Warlords are really only prominent in Fallout in the first generation after the bombs
They weren't even that prominent then. Outside of the Khans, Vipers and Jackals, there's not really any big warlord types in the early Fallout Universe. Small settlements and medium-sized trading hubs were the big thing in the first generation. By the second you get large cities and the trading hubs linking into states.

Because those nomads would get btfo by whatever served as the army or local levy, an isolated community of farmers with whatever little reserve of firepower they is hardly the same thing.

Also "raiders" is a catch all term, it doesn't necessarily mean dirty retarded nomads. A group of army deserters using stolen weaponry are "raiders".

You realize that "isolated farmers" in the United States own more firearms and ammunition than any other American demographic, correct? There are more rural Americans with firearms than there are Americans in the military.

>an isolated community of farmers with whatever little reserve of firepower they is hardly the same thing.
I live in one of the least populated states and am sitting on six long guns and 4,000 rounds to feed them. Me. Personally. That's not counting the guns the rest of the household owns.
"Raiders" wouldn't be a thing in north america.

Part 1:
The aftermath of a nuclear war is grossly exaggerated. Writers and movie makers prefer truly apocalyptic scenarios as these sell better. Peace activists prefer to exaggerate the effects to generate opposition to nuclear weapons.
Now, let’s assume a classic US vs. Russia scenario with the rest of the world staying out of it to make the example easier.
Most nuclear weapons are targetted against the enemy’s strategic nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon storage sites, and stockpiles of tactical nuclear weapons. Both sides have some 1,600 strategic warheads ready. Of these, at least 1,100 would be needed for an attack against the other side’s nuclear arsenal. This leaves 500. Realistically speaking each side would need a reserve of 200 warheads. This means at most 300 can be used against other targets. This scenario assumes of course neither side was very successful in destroying the other side’s nuclear arsenal. In reality, the numbers would be lower. Now take into account that to totally destroy a city like the Greater NY Metropolitan area, you’d need 40 warheads in the 500 kt yield series.
Basically, most urban-industrial centres would be intact: the military can fire back, cities can’t. Should the war expand, ports of embarkation and debarkation would be targetted, but these would truly be only the port facilities. Where they border civilian areas, there would be damage and loss of life.

Part 2:
Even in the extreme case where one side would also attack cities, the destruction would still be limited.
Now the aftermath. Most fallout is at relative safe levels after two weeks due to natural decay; this assumes of course there is a fallout. Fallout is mostly generated by ground burst (explosions where the fireball touches the ground), cities would be hit by air burst to maximize blast damage from overpressure; these produce not much fallout.
Forget the idea of a nuclear winter, it is based on faulty premises. A nuclear winter assumes sooth and debris is thrown into the stratosphere and would remain there for months or even years. But most mushroom clouds don’t even make it to the stratosphere. Most debris particle are also too heavy to remain in the stratosphere should they ever get there … in practice they fall back to earth in a matter of days. As for the sooth, well most sooth remains inside destroyed buildings, so this is a faulty presumption as well.
No the good news. In contrast to World War II bombardments, air bursts don’t destroy the underground infrastructure. So if a part of a city is hit, the sewers, water pipes, and electrical cables, telephone lines, etc. are all still intact. This makes reconstruction a lot easier.
Decontamination is also pretty easy and straightforward: hose down the contaminated area and vehicles with water after the fallout dust has settled (best wait two weeks if possible to allow for natural decay). Make sure this water flows to an area where it can’t continue contaminate the ground water and let it seep in. In agriculture you just plough under the top layer (12 inches or 30 cm) or scrape it off and you’re good to go. It really is that simple.
In an all-out nuclear war, both sides would be back to their pre-war GNP within 15 years, most likely within a decade.

Part 3:
The following is based on a limited war scenario where there is no massive counterforce exchange, but rather a slow build up of smaller attacks over weeks or months.
In the US:
45 Million dead from initial blast effects. 65-95 Million more over the next 180 days from privation, injuries, radiological effects.
75% of Petroleum refining capacity eliminated, 15% requires some level of repair to operate, the remaining 10% may be operable.
All nuclear power plants are inoperable and will require restart procedures.
Overall, 45% of power generation capacity in the US is non-functional and will remain that way for 800-1000 days.
The power grid is non-functional. It will require extensive repairs before electricity generated can be used anywhere other than locally.
Martial law is in effect in all but name. The surviving government (executive branch only) will attempt to coordinate recovery operations, and the disbursement of scarce resources.
There may be some resistance to this.
Survivors from urban areas that have sustained too much damage to remain will be resettled in non effected areas.
There may be some resistance to this.
Any resistance will likely be dealt with initially thought attempted negotiation involving the issuance of government backed promissory notes. If this fails the resources will be confiscated though the use of force. Don't worry, we aren't talking about your stash of MRE's or dried food, but rather large amounts produced on an industrial scale.
If the Government of the Great State of Iowa doesnt want to turn over the corn it confiscated from ADM facilities inside the state so they can be disbursed to hungry people in California, then they better be ready to kill for it.
Counterforce first strike is 10 Million dead, combined blast effects, civil unrest, privation at 180 days.

when the big bombs fly, we go bye bye

Addendum:
Nuclear winter is a complete myth, totally impossible under any circumstances. Why?
a)The myth is based on (incorrect) estimates based on the Hiroshima bombing. There was a firestorm in Hiroshima, sure. What nobody liked to talk about is that there was no firestorm in Nagasaki, even though it was hit by a more powerful bomb. Why? Because unlike Hiroshima Nagasaki was a (semi)modern city with mostly stone and concrete construction. No wooden buildings=no firestorm.
b)Events releasing way more smoke and/or radiation that the entire world's nuclear arsenal detonation would have already happened. For example, Chernobyl, due to the nature of its explosion and fire (a sort of "dirty radiation bomb" so to speak) released thousands more radiation than the combined fallout from all nuclear weapons ever could. There are people living in Chernobyl, and have been for decades, it's pretty much almost safe now, as safe a Russian industrial city, anyway. It's brimming with wildlife, vegetation has overgrown everything, it's a paradise, a natural preserve. On a related note, tens of thousands of people are living in Japan literally where the atomic bombs have struck 70 years ago, it's totally safe.
As for the smoke from the (nonexistant) firestorms, again, regular forest fires and volcanoes have been causing literally thousands of times more smoke (and for longer periods) than a hundred burning cities ever could. And yet here we are.

To sum up, take your copies of Threads and The Day After and toss them out the window. They used to be some of my favorite and scariest documentaries, until I actually decided to spend some time and do a little research. WWIII would be a WWII on steroids, but nothing more. Humanity would definitely survive, and civilization too. If you're away from fighting in a neutral country, it would look like nothing happened at all.

>>Hundreds of millions of people would die in the initial bombing,
>Unlikely, but possible.
Likely numbers are 40 to 50 million at 90 days as a median.

Mate just bombing ten major cities would exceed those numbers by far.

Most intelligent people live in cities or urban areas, so only rednecks and other literal peasants would continue to exist. Sounds like a goddamn nightmare to me.

ave, true to Caesar
>so much legion stuff cut out, i'm not crying

Are we talking about America? The big cities are all majority non-white so their average IQ is low, it's no coincidence the flyover states are the smartest ones.

It wouldn't take a generation to rebuild, more like 10 years tops.

I love how everyone just ignores the whole nuclear Armageddon myth demolition two posts above.

Urban areas are characterised by both high populations and high disparities within those populations, both in wealth and in intelligence. For instance, California -- one of the most urbanised states in the U.S. -- has both an extremely large population of stupid poors and an extremely large population (comparatively) of rich geniuses. So while flyover states might have the highest average IQs, they're also generally rural states with much lower populations, with far narrower gaps of disparity in intelligence and wealth.

Put simply, cities and urban areas will always have a disproportionate number of both stupid people and intelligent people, with a comparatively lower number of "average" people. Rural areas have a more normal distribution with a slightly better average overall, but they still nevertheless lack the intellectual juggernaut of the nation, which prefers to reside in cities.

It really boils down to race. Majority white cities aren't full of dumbshits like LA, Miami or Houston. Especially Miami is basically a 3rd world city.

It'd take a while but we'd come back if the nuclear winter created doesn't knock us into a fucking semipermanent ice age. There are large swaths of land that are sparcly inhabited that wouldn't get hit or very lightly. We could bounce back in a few hundred years. Not close to this but we'd be colonel times in no time. I picture it'd be like some final fantasy mashup with guys with old highly advanced things that survived and fucking swords and mail armour trying ro survive. I for one welcome this.

I believe before the events of the first game, the Vipers were actually a sizeable power in California until they were essentially wiped out by the Brotherhood of Steel, but yeah, by Fallout 2, California is pretty subdued and divided up by small states.

No, it really boils down to class/lower-performing demographics. Even majority-white cities are full of unusually large populations of the poor and stupid. Removing stupid people of every race will always be more effective than removing people of only select races.

Pretty much this. Even the most pessimistic views most people around here seem to have forget that the world today is only kept afloat a by a thread of fragile infrastructure. Go around your house and take a look at all the things that make your living possible. Include the water in your taps, the food in your fridge and the electricity in your sockets.

All of these would be gone in an instant. Furthermore, replacement of these things would not come quick. Material today is transported along motorways, roads and rails. All of these would be either clogged or destroyed beyond imminent repair. A nuclear war would instantly close the tap of the constant flow of supplies that is needed to keep urban, or even rural, communities alive and well.

The first thing you'd notice is the food. You probably don't keep a lot of food around. Nor do most. Within a few days your supplies would be gone. You'd have to resort to one of two things; Stealing or relying on government handouts. The government handsout would soon run out as well, leaving you with only stealing.

Furthermore, so much dust would get thrown up into the air that the amount of sunlight that got through to the surface within the first few years would be limited. The result? Crop failure and famine.

Within a few weeks people would start dying off from hunger - if the thirst have not already gotten to them. Thousands and soon more corpses would litter the streets. The survivors would have to clean up of course but where to put them? And how to transport them? And these transports would then NOT be used to transport food and supplies. Most EU nations keep an oil reserve of 90 days. Let's triple that because there aren't going to be as many vehicles around. Hell, maybe even put at a year. So most nations would have about a year of oil consumption stocked up.

What then? There's no new oil coming in. Motorized society would halt and stop.

1/2

So within a year population will have stabilized at a new low. That low is much lower than the one of today. For argument's sake let's put it at one tenth of todays population, which is roughly the 80's estimate. For comparison, that's roughly Medieval levels of population. Other areas such as medicine and food production would revert to an early industrial age of technology. Taxation would be done in kind, rather than coin and huge black markets would blossom. People would move out of the cities to get closer to the areas of food production. Most modern appliances would come in simpler designs to accomodate a drasticially different lifestyle and production capability.

It wouldn't be fallout. It'd be something more along early industrial revolution type world, but with a lot of ruins here and there and massive famine due to crop rotations. Mortality rates would skyrocket, food would be used for currency and education would be of a much lower standard. Our knowledge as a society wouldn't drop, but our education would. Illiteracy would be a thing again as people would prioritize other fields such as construction or agriculture.

Fossil fuels would be few and those nations that could control them would be rich.

Basicly, it'd suck ass. But humanity would make it through.

2/2

Nuclear winter is a spook though.

None of this is accurate and Threads is either very poorly researched, or, more likely, created intentionally as a piece of baseless scaremongering propaganda.
See:

You got white cities like Omaha Nebraska or Boise Idaho and their average IQ is much higher than the cities mentioned above.

IQ is a measure of access to and quality of education more than inherent intelligence!

Fallout is a very fun game, I love FO1 and FNV personally, but it has nothing to do with reality, it's about as factual as Warhammer 40k. And I don't mean the giant mutated insects or radiation zombies. The effects of the war wouldn't be nearly as devastating. Even in the absolute worst 1950's Massive Retaliation strategic bombing scenario, there would be no civilization collapse on the level exceeding WWII. And the current (since 1970s) nuclear doctrine is entirely built on the counterforce principle, with 99% of weapons targeting enemy silos in the middle of nowhere. If you live in a major city and ignore the news, you can literally miss the whole nuclear exchange and never know it happened until the TV told you.

>IQ isn't hereditary

Nice bait.

Not that any of this matters since cities that don't have major ports and military harbors in them have zero chance of being targeted.

I just hope that when we emerge from the Vaults in 200 years we have something cute and adorable waiting for us.

What a nice stallion, I hope he is ready to rape the world to its knees? Fetlocks? bendy parts of the pony.

Are you even paying attention to what I'm saying? Neither of those cities are on par economically or in intellectual output with the various coastal or near-coastal cities of the U.S., the ones with much larger populations, much larger disparities within those populations, and so on and so forth. Even then, those inland cities have much larger populations of minorities and much larger disparities than rural communities elsewhere in their state.

And acknowledging all this, white vs. nonwhite is ultimately meaningless -- it's the intelligent vs. the nonintelligent, of any race or gender or background. You are resolute in complaining about the universal inferiority of blacks and spics and so on whilst ignoring stupid whites.

Ahem.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads

...is counter-factual.

>Los Angeles
>intellectual output

lol

The stupid whites are still geniuses compared to the stupid blacks though. A white guy will be considered dumb of his IQ is under 100 but the average black IQ is between 70 and 85, that's retard tier.

Are you trying to argue that every coastal city in the world is equitable to Los Angeles?

India vs Pakistan is the most likely scenario for the start of a nuclear war in the modern world, though. I agree on Brazil and probably Australia.

That's a retarded and nonsensical way of looking at it. You're basically saying it's okay when a white guy has an IQ of 90, but not okay when a black guy has an IQ of 90.

Wrong.