If there was a nuclear attack

Stringy · 24 Jun 2006 at 01:22

No doubt I'd be a very busy man (providing I was serving when it happened), and it would be a case of enveloping myself in as much NBC kit as I could pull out of my cupboards. Part of my job could involve ballistic missile detection, so I could end up being one of the first people to know about any such attack, which is good. I think.

Just think, how petrified would you be if you were watching TV, without a care in the world, and suddenly your programme is interrupted by a very stoney faced person informing you that Nukes were on the way :/

locutus12 · 24 Jun 2006 at 02:25

lucifersam said:
a retaliatory strike would hopefully prevent any further initial strikes, anyway our nukes would be used in support of conventioanl action and not targeted against overly populated areas

conventional action ??? with what exactly ??? the country would be effectively crippled, youd be lucky if we could fill a rowing boat full of home guard let alone mount a conventional war against a heavily armed opponent...

dmpoole said:
Whats that, 18 couples and one gay man to do the interior decorating?

i never liked kids anyway

Willowbark · 24 Jun 2006 at 04:40

/shudder Threads

/shudder Z for Zachariah

/shudder When the wind blows

I spend much of my working life down manholes and deep tunnels so I know I'm never more than a few minutes away from a suitable survival location. But no - I'd want the radio transmitter nuclear guidance system stuck right here in my pocket. Better yet, stitch the thing under my skin...

Slampapi (marc smith) sums up my feelings best in his poem:Bomb Shelter
Slampapi Bomb Shelter

benneh · 24 Jun 2006 at 07:00

Jumpingmedic said:
Survive definitely... post apocolyptic warzones always appealed to me for some morbid reason or other. I always thought I'd have done well in a simple survival existance. Never got the hang of this "civilized society" nonsence.

I feel exactly the same way. I often assess how i think others would do. I assembled a mental map of who i'd want around me at the time. But then i moved to Liverpool, so these people are far too far away.

I would like to live, i think i would do OK after the nuke. Presuming that i survived the blast and wasnt killed by radiation.

DRZ · 24 Jun 2006 at 07:24

I think it would be too horriffic to bear. Anyone sick WOULD be killed to give the healthy the best chance of survival, so you would have to avoid all radiation and any diseases as you go about "surviving".

Protect and Survive was issued to give people hope and nothing more.

Scania · 24 Jun 2006 at 07:30

There is no nuclear attack!

Mickey_D · 24 Jun 2006 at 07:51

Being over 200 miles from anything even close to being a viable nuclear strike target perhaps is a good thing, no?

Since I have my own water supply (protected by over 100 feet of clay earth), my own source of electrical generation (windmill generators in the works, Deisel tractor fueled by veggie oil or the Toyota powered by ethanol which I can grow my own), food sources available quite readily (overpopulated deer, live in the middle of the grain belt), and a fairly good reserve of self defense and hunting means (Ruger 10/22 with over 5,000 rounds of .22 ammo for it and the Lee Enfield with several hundred rounds for it).....

So, yes. I would prefer to survive. As I most likely would be able to go on surviving after everything had settled down.

Mind you, it would severely SUCK not being able to chat with you folks on a daily basis.....

chrisd · 24 Jun 2006 at 07:59

Mickey_D said:
Mind you, it would severely SUCK not being able to chat with you folks on a daily basis.....

That's certainly what I'd miss in a post-apocalyptic nuclear winter

penski · 24 Jun 2006 at 08:46

I'd be safe...in orbit

*n

Adnams Drinker · 24 Jun 2006 at 08:53

peter_hutson said:
In the event of a full scale nuclear strike, I'd want to be as ****** as hell right at ground zero. B***** would I want to event attempt to live through that. Those of you who have not seen it, should try and get hold of a film called "threads", it's set during the 80s in Shefield and shows exactly what would happen in the event of a Nuclear war. Very chilling film, made me pooh my pants when I first saw it (I was 10 at the time) and it still does (watched it again last year). I can't remember the origin of th quote, but it's said that "if we fight WW3 with nuclear weapons, we will fight WW4 with sticks ans stones".

Similar here, I saw 'Threads' when I was a kid and it scared the **** out of me. I'd want to be stood outside in the garden as the bomb drops - ideally with my wife in my arms.

As someone said earlier, you only have to look at the way some people acted during crises like Katrina to realise that the idea that humans are civilised is something of a myth - scale that up to an event that would encompass nothing more than the complete obliteration of huge parts of this country and indeed the wider world, and that behaviour would become the norm.

There would be no such thing as 'law and order' and the innate thuggery that most humans manage to suppress in society as we currently know it would have to be given full reign in order to scratch some sort of subsistence existence - that is exactly what it would be, no services, no communications, no internet, no mobile phones ... mankind would effectively return to the Stone Age. Einstein's assertion that we would be fighting "with sticks and stones" is exactly right. Everything around us would be irradiated for hundreds of years to come, so if the blast didn't get you, you'd die a slow death of radiation poisoning.

Live in a world like that when I could choose to die in the arms of the one I love and be vapourised in little more than a second? I know which I'd be choosing ...

peter_hutson said:
Incidently, I fully support the maintenance of our nuclear deterrent.

Indeed, just about the only thing that that slack-jawed **** Gordon Brown has ever said that I actually agree with ...

Visage · 24 Jun 2006 at 09:00

OCdt Stringy said:
No doubt I'd be a very busy man (providing I was serving when it happened), and it would be a case of enveloping myself in as much NBC kit as I could pull out of my cupboards. Part of my job could involve ballistic missile detection, so I could end up being one of the first people to know about any such attack, which is good. I think.

Nah - the UKADGE wouldnt know anything about until it was too late.

You'd probably be quite safe in one of the RAF's R3 bunkers though, so you'd at least survive the initial attack.....

Visage · 24 Jun 2006 at 09:04

Vanilla said:
I would fully support retaliatory strikes.

Nukes themselves don't deter the use of nukes, it's the mutually assured destruction that does - the fact that the other side WILL use them to strike back, not that they have them.

if that makes sense

But surely the fact that we've been attacked means that the MAD concept has failed?

As far as I can see, at that point all bets are off, and there's no point retaliating - we can either retaliate, and turn the world over to the cockroaches, or we dont, and at least humanity (in form of whoever attacked us), can survive.

IMO the survival of humanity is more important than an act of revenge.

Lagmeister · 24 Jun 2006 at 10:58

If it turns out like the fallout games I would, I would be a mutie with everything to proove, capturin normies to turn them into muties, shooting people who disagree with my plasma rifle, what isnt there to love?

But if it isnt like that I would rather die in the first attack, that way I can haunt the people who survive if I come back as a ghost, I would have company wherever I happen to go upstairs or down, or I would just be reincarnated as a cockroach or something, yay.