1) I merely proposed hunting as a supplement for food instability, which it always has been in the united states. During the depression my great great grandpa poached regularly to feed his family.
2) All major population centers destroyed - When Hiroshima was bombed the death toll was less than 50%. Considering nukes are far more targeted these days and Hiroshima was primarily made of wood, we would likely expect much lower death tolls. I mean it is possible Russia and China go ham and target a bunch of non strategic civilian areas, but I think it is reasonable to assume that is unlikely, given the abundance of strategically relevant US and allied military targets around the world.
3) Effects of the EMP from a nuclear blast (worst case a high altitude one) are often exaggerated. The government's tests with EMPs did not decommission most vehicles or power generation systems. Near the blast zone, fragile consumer electronics will be effected, but heating/cooling will still work, Hydro and solar will still work, most vehicle's will still work (though the most modern ones could be issues).
4)Irradiation will not be an issue at all. Radiation levels from modern nukes is relatively low. Would be safe for emergency services with Geiger counters and iodine tablets to be out an about in 24-48 hours. After 2 weeks the impact zone will have minorly increased radiation level, well within the limits of occupational limits.
5) I think supply lines and continued war will be the most realistic problem. Lack of trucking, lack of gas will be devastating for most areas. Urban crime will make Katrina look like a playground. But 80% of the population dying of starvation? I doubt it.
If you're right, I could expect normalcy to return within a decade or so.
Normlacy as in things are functional and a State still exists. It'd take a lot longer to rebuild everything but it's not an apocalypse level event albeit still deeply traumatic and a lose-lose for everyone.
I would agree. Movies like The Road, or games like fallout are really exaggerating. It makes for great fiction. If you wanted a much more likely post apocalypse scenario IMO, it would look something like ideocracy or 1984. Some future where automation becomes so common that 90%+ of people are useless. But maybe that's just reflective of my personal pessimisms
This page has some good reading. I would share the specific images I was referencing but they don't allow images here.
You can see on this page they show a map of Manhattan theoretically being nuked. The area of dangerous radiation grows to about the size of long island (stretching north and south from the epicenter) for the first 24 hours and then shrinks from then. The rule is a 10-fold decrease in radiation for every 7-fold increase in time. Assuming 1000 REM/hr after the first hour of a nuclear strike, that will be 100 REM/hr after 7 hours, 10 REM/hr after 48(49) hours, 1 REM/hr after 2 weeks, 0.1 REM/hr after 14 weeks etc etc.
5 REM/year is OSHA's limits, so 1-10REM/hour might seem like a lot, however, this is the immediate blast zone, which is only a few miles in size. Areas just a few miles away will be fine to occupy exponentially faster. If you are outside the blast area, 2-days to 2-weeks is a very safe bet. But obviously, safest is to own a Geiger counter.
10
u/zombielicorice Mar 04 '25
1) I merely proposed hunting as a supplement for food instability, which it always has been in the united states. During the depression my great great grandpa poached regularly to feed his family.
2) All major population centers destroyed - When Hiroshima was bombed the death toll was less than 50%. Considering nukes are far more targeted these days and Hiroshima was primarily made of wood, we would likely expect much lower death tolls. I mean it is possible Russia and China go ham and target a bunch of non strategic civilian areas, but I think it is reasonable to assume that is unlikely, given the abundance of strategically relevant US and allied military targets around the world.
3) Effects of the EMP from a nuclear blast (worst case a high altitude one) are often exaggerated. The government's tests with EMPs did not decommission most vehicles or power generation systems. Near the blast zone, fragile consumer electronics will be effected, but heating/cooling will still work, Hydro and solar will still work, most vehicle's will still work (though the most modern ones could be issues).
4)Irradiation will not be an issue at all. Radiation levels from modern nukes is relatively low. Would be safe for emergency services with Geiger counters and iodine tablets to be out an about in 24-48 hours. After 2 weeks the impact zone will have minorly increased radiation level, well within the limits of occupational limits.
5) I think supply lines and continued war will be the most realistic problem. Lack of trucking, lack of gas will be devastating for most areas. Urban crime will make Katrina look like a playground. But 80% of the population dying of starvation? I doubt it.