I'm getting rather concerned about all these "nuclear war isn't that bad, actually" takes from libs
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
158 points (99.4% liked)
chapotraphouse
13547 readers
22 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
They can only ban so many Russian athletes from sporting events before their frustration overflows
You mean you actually care about the world going up in an atomic hellstorm?
But what about freedom and liberty as held to my own strange and self-destructive definition? 
We had to irradiate the village in order to save it
load more comments
(1 replies)
Better city planning
Suburban sprawl as a nuclear defense strategy is a new one to me lmao
it was a limited consideration in the 50s, but basically bolted on the side of robert-moses-core with the odd rootcellar called "fallout shelter" as a marketing gimic in new developments.
round about 1:07 in everyone's favorite nuclear documentary is an example
That's actually not that new. I think that was part of it.
It is important to remember why cities were building highways through the fifties and sixties; why the federal government was promoting low-density suburban development and why companies were moving their corporate head offices to campuses in the country: Civil defense. One of the best defenses against nuclear bombs is sprawl; the devastation of a bomb can only cover so much area. Shawn Lawrence Otto wrote in Fool Me Twice[.]
That is supposed to mean "lower density cities", I guess. So first of all, that is bad urban planning. Secondly, I don't think that it helps so much, buildings and stuff are still there.
Not to mention the stuff we put in our houses and make them out of is like 20x more flammable than back then.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm sure the new Applebee's and it's gargantuan parking lot will certainly shield the $1 Margaritas from any significant amount of damage
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
almost impossible
prerequisite firestorms extremely unlikely
Lahaina survivors have entered the chat
This sort of nukable, mixed use urbanism is illegal to build in most US cities.
Why can't more people be like Philomena Cunk and cry just knowing that nuclear bombs are still a thing?
load more comments
(1 replies)
lol I saw someone suggest nuclear war may only kill as few as 10,000 people. What??
"well, you see, 99.9% of Russia's nukes don't work,. of course all our nukes work, but we don't consider Russians to be 'people' so they aren't added to the count"
Have you considered the world deserves to die for not sufficiently supporting Ukraine in this time of need
Humbly requesting you add pronouns. I almost thought you were serious.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Reminds me of when my 
- fan friend was enthusing about how American missile defense would protect us from incoming Russian ICBMs. He was saying this in the context of wishing we'd done a Highway of Death to Russian forces nearing Kiev and how we could've gotten away with it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
No amount of hubris is too much for our friends with lower yield ideologies.
Come on, let's have a nuclear war. It's not that bad. It's just the immediate destruction of all major population centres of the developed world and fallout that will haunt survivors for generations. It's no big deal! Stop being such a chicken about it!
load more comments
(1 replies)
well fuck my ass and call me a rotiserrie, here i thought the one thing i'd be guaranteed in my nuclear apocalypse would be the end of global warming!
may as well throw all these missiles away if they can't even cool this place down a bit after killing 8 billion people
The reality is: Nobody is sure, any nuclear bombing is species-wide suicide at worst, an insanely pointless gamble at best. The vague consensus seems to be it would take a maximum 100 warheads to irreversibly destroy ecology worldwide, some suggest it would only take a few modern warheads. I suggest we do all we can to not fucking find out.
I've studied nuclear weapons. I'm no physicist but I've read pretty extensively on the after-effects.
These people are fucking stupid
Do they address why they have smaller yields? Because targeting systems are much more advanced. That's it. That's the reason. It's like arguing it's better to be shot in the heart with a single round rather than blasted with buckshot in the center of the chest. You're still fucking dead.
I have a PhD in nuclear physics from a top 10 science guy university in the world, and I don't believe nuclear armageddon is a problem. And I'm also not interested in discussing it (just so that no one comes with bs talking points, I've seen enough). I'm just saying this so that you don't stumble on your own delusional bubble too much.
You don't believe in science. You believe in TV. You haven't read a single peer reviewed paper on the matter, let alone papers that have a different point of view. So spare me your condescending bullshit.
Now go ahead and downvote me so that you can sleep better at night after having excluded me, the infidel. Just remember that many people out there have degrees, educated and read 100 times on the matter than you and disagree with your delusions on the matter. Enjoy four faith in TV.
Is that a copypasta?
EDIT: Shit, it is. Worse, I saw the pasta being made, fresh, and lost track because there was so much of it. 
load more comments
(4 replies)
Your posting power is unmatched, comrade.
Me when the TV gods fail me: 
load more comments
(8 replies)
B E T T E R City Planning?!!!!
urban planning
"Buh? why are you dismissing my Bookchin redditor friends as 'satanic holocaust PMC'? Actually urban planning is a respectable academic discipline"
People have to remember, it's not so much cities themselves that could be targets in a nuclear war. The first to go would likely be military bases, international airports and seaports (pretty much anything that can launch and support military equipment and personnel), and the hundreds of missile silos that dot Missouri and Montana.
Secondary targets would be industrial centers like steel mills and chemical plants, and railroad yards. Communication hubs and tech centers might be hit as well.
Most of these things just happen to be in major cities, but the cities themselves aren’t targets, and people living in suburban and rural areas aren’t necessarily safe.
(Of course, all this is based on outdated Cold War-era nuclear exchange theories that may or may not have changed. The communication hub thing for example: the Internet was originally created as a means of decentralizing communication in case of a nuclear attack. So take everything I said here with a grain of salt.)
See the problem is most east coast and a lot of West Coast cities have major military installations inside of them or very near them. Additionally, military targets are only the first wave of all out nuclear war, major civilian targets are chosen to weaken logistical networks and slow recovery. So if you live in a city with a large port, rail way, interstate, or airport. Than your probably fucked.
This is all part of unclassified plans from the cold war you can find on the Internet. There's a million YouTube videos about what an all out nuclear war would look like based off those documents. Given nuclear technology hasn't seen any major improvements sense these plans were written, it's probably safe to assume they're still mostly valid.
The two nuclear bombs dropped by the US on Japan were pointedly targeting mass civilian population centres, I don't think you can rely on them being targeted with any real strategic logic, they are the tools of the genocidal and the deranged.
he
load more comments
(1 replies)
Make these people' watch Thread because they seem to believe that not getting fried in the first strike is a win
They never know what it's like to dig trench with shovel to build ''bunker'' that are more like 1.5 meter deep trench to prep for an eventual nuclear war
Their takeaway from Threads would be "look, there's still people in the end! it's not so bad!"
reddit people believe they are strong enough to do hard labor and not minced by cannibalistic tribe due to food shortage is unironic main character symptom
reddit people believe they are strong enough to do hard labor and not minced by cannibalistic tribe
The CEO of 
fantasizes about being a slaver warlord in the fantastical Fallouterino wastes, and even bragged about getting his vision surgically corrected so he could "snipe looters." 
unironic main character symptom
The cognitohazard plague of "what if everything simulation" and its almost inevitable followup "what if everyone but me and people I like are NPCs" is a part of that too. 
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
All the libs are going to join the NCR anyway after the nuclear catastrophe.
"Trailing the Mojave makes me wish for a nuclear winter."
Real death cult hours among the libs
Ok sweaty you go ahead and stress about nuclear winter while the Adults In The Room ^tm do the Responsible Thing ^tm and launch ICBMs at putler
Ahhh so that's what all the parking lots and highways are for.
view more: next ›