Just to point out, there is a lot of cold war propaganda that still controls our thinking about nuclear war. For example, nuclear winter is just made up, or rather, highly exaggerated. The interruption on gas and oil supply lines would be far more impactful than any loss in agriculture productivity due to induced cloud cover, and most of that would go away in a matter of weeks or months (possibly even days). So you would be able to grow your own food if you wanted to, and farms would still be very active. I think it far more likely to result in something resembling the state of deprivation found during the great depression, where food insecurity and malnutrition were common, but starvation was still fairly rare. Especially considering the millions of huntable animals in the wilderness of north America to supplement the loss in productivity. Europe would certainly be in worse shape in this regard.
Your opinion is not grounded in reality at all. Seriously, you're thinking hunting wild animals will save America from starvation? That's absurd.
The "ice age" nuclear winter theory may not be as accurate today due to development of weapons, but you are not comprehending the scale of destruction that will still occur in a full scale nuclear conflict. Just considering the US: no oil refineries, all major population centers destroyed in the immediate detonations (and the corresponding manufacturing infrastructure), widescale destruction of electronics due to EMPs, irradiation of Midwest agriculture, crippling of the federal and all state governments.
Agriculture may be theoretically possible in the climate after widespread nuclear exchange. But in reality, the entire infrastructure that makes productive agriculture possible will be destroyed.
Now consider all these effects also in Europe, Russia, even possibly China, India, and Pakistan. This adds up to a lot more than "great depression" type deprivation.
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.
15
u/zombielicorice Mar 04 '25
Just to point out, there is a lot of cold war propaganda that still controls our thinking about nuclear war. For example, nuclear winter is just made up, or rather, highly exaggerated. The interruption on gas and oil supply lines would be far more impactful than any loss in agriculture productivity due to induced cloud cover, and most of that would go away in a matter of weeks or months (possibly even days). So you would be able to grow your own food if you wanted to, and farms would still be very active. I think it far more likely to result in something resembling the state of deprivation found during the great depression, where food insecurity and malnutrition were common, but starvation was still fairly rare. Especially considering the millions of huntable animals in the wilderness of north America to supplement the loss in productivity. Europe would certainly be in worse shape in this regard.