>>20898
>The heat flash of a nuclear explosion would instantly set fire to almost everything within several miles. Fire was the primary killer in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Being made of tinder didn't particularly help there, to be fair.

My mum has a close Japanese friend who has bone problems she eventually admitted were caused by radiation in her family's past.
I slept with a Japanese girl who had a weird patch of dark skin with thick hair on it growing over her shoulder. Initially I thought it was a bruise but she said it was something the doctor did wrong when she was being born. Obviously that was bullshit. 80, 90 years later and they still have birth defects.
Nuclear bombs are fucked up.

>>20900
Sounds like bollocks to me. You can't get osteoperosis by being a child of someone who was once exposed to radiation. And dark skin with hair growing on it, wooooooh what a mutant! Pfff. There's no evidence for any of this to have been caused by the bombs, you're just making assumptions.

>>20883

We'd have enough arable land to sustain the stabilised post-nuclear population.

But therein lies the rub. In order to reach that sustainable population level, a lot of people have to die. Many more than died in the initial attack. Many of them will succumb to the radiation and injuries, while many will perish from general sickness, and exposure to the elements.

In addition, what remains of society has to be allowed to adapt. Law and order will remain for a time, but increasingly break down as the influence of authority collapses. Most modern people simply don't know how to do things like grow crops and make bread- Office plankton who live on takeaways and microwave meals won't last long, but in the meantime they will have little choice but to beg or steal.

In the long term, human co-operation will prevail and a new form of society (albeit primitive, and most likely brutally feudal) will rise from the ashes. But it's not going to be immediate. In the short term, those first few months and years after the attack, there will be hunger, disorder, and violence.

>>20889
Nice to know that a "crude terrorist nuclear weapon" would still pretty much destroy the Palace of Westminster.

>>20903
There are no "crude" nuclear weapons really. The risks of a terrorist group creating one, let alone managing to transport it into the heart of Westminster, are very very slim.

The ability of a 100t yield nuclear weapon to destroy a building shouldn't be particularly surprising in any case.

Consider that this is the kind of damage you can do with a 1t conventional bomb:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_IuHA5DKGY

>>20901
I didn't say it was osteoporosis, but yes, damage to your genes through radiation is heritable.

>>20906
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737396/
>Animal and cellular studies tend to suggest that the irradiation of males, at least at high doses (1 Gy and above), can lead to observable effects (including both genetic and epigenetic) in the somatic cells of their offspring over several generations that are not attributable to the inheritance of a simple mutation through the parental germ line. However, studies of disease in the offspring of irradiated humans have not so far identified any effects on health, possibly in part a result of lack of statistical power. The available evidence therefore suggests that human health has not been significantly affected by transgenerational effects of radiation. As noted earlier any transgenerational effects may be restricted to relatively short times post-exposure and in humans conception at short times after exposure is likely to be rare.

>>20905
On that subject, has the postbox survived the Metrolink expansion?

>>20908
It was replaced years ago according to my tour guide.

>>20909
The legend on the plaque claims that it was "removed" and "returned to its original site" when the area was rebuilt, though that doesn't answer whether or not there's a Ship of Theseus thing going on.

>>20907
Alright then.

>>20879
>Until, as >>20871 points out, food and other essentials become life-threateningly scarce.

Well this reminds me of the stag hunt game:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt

I know people are not necessarily rational but in an open environment where a community is under extreme stress it doesn't make sense to me for them to waste resources competing. As I believe I've alluded to it depends largely on the people but when you can form a mutually beneficial partnership for what will inevitably be a long struggle or bash his head in for a box of crackers what do you think is the best option?

>>20881
>Go read about the Siege of Leningrad. The sort of shortage that turns people to cannibalism. If we're talking about nuclear war, that's almost certainly the sort of situation we are in for, not just the mild hardships of a petrol strike or some such, requiring us to tighten our belts and show some of that "stiff upper lip".

Actually despite the existence of cannibalism it seems to have been comparatively rare given the circumstances according to wikipedia. The city also held out, it didn't descend into anarchy and we have the stories of people like Dmitry S. Ivanov who starved to death surrounded by seeds.
http://articles.philly.com/1992-04-26/news/26003775_1_seed-bank-leningrad-collection

I mean we have the term 'siege mentality' for a reason.

>Which is the context I'm working from- In the event of nuclear war, Britain would most likely be proper fucked.

Its beside the point but the Soviet war plan for 'Seven Days to the River Rhine' makes an omission of both France and Britain as nuclear targets which some assume may have been because both states were capable of massive retaliation. Even the US airbases on British soil were only be attacked by conventional munitions.

Not relevant but interesting for a time when it was the Warsaw pact that was starting to rely on nuclear arms as a force multiplier.

On tonight 10pm BBC 4 lads. You can thank me after.

>>25310

Only if we can watch it together, I think I might top myself if I watch it on my own.

>>20912

Re-reading this post chain, I am pretty sure I'm the one on the other side of this argument. If you still post here after all this time: You're a fucking div.

>>25310
2 hours notice, someone stream it over the britfa.gs Discord. Go on, let us know :)

>>25312
Fuck it, found on the internet archive.
https://archive.org/details/threads_202007

It’s just started if anyone is watching it. I’ve seen it before and was disappointed, but I get the feeling I am going to watch it again now.

See in a way this bit before it all kicks off scares me the most. Very tense. (It's a bit darkly funny that it stars soap actors and it's all shot like a soap, but there's so much tension. Just brilliant film making honestly.)

Where it's just fragmented news stories about some far off shit in some far off country and the Yanks are being dicks and the Russians are throwing their weight about, and then before anyone knows it the world is ending. That to me doesn't at all seem unrealistic. It always worries me whenever there's something going on like in Ukraine or Lebanon or any of the times before that. Somebody always comes out to say "oh don't be daft they won't nuke everyone over this", but if it does happen that's what it will be like.

It's also funny how Sheffield has barely changed. I've not been there for a few years but the view of it in the distance still looks more or less the same.

>>25315
For some reason, I can only think of the music video for Smalltown Boy when I see these people moping around their council houses. It’s all very kitchen-sink so far.

Kablammo. It’s almost halfway through before the bombs go off. Of course, if you were watching this for the first time and nobody knew what was coming, suddenly it’s very understandable how this became such a cultural touchstone.

Yeah it wasn't all the good, but I suppose it isn't meant to be a materpiece of storytelling, though it scratches the post-apocalyptic itch. I must either lack empathy or lack a grasp of the gravity of the film as it hasn't left me feeling .. anything in particular.

The most troubling part to me was the supposed authority people assume to hoard materials away from others. With no real central command how can the police/trafficwarden(!) linemembers justify what they're doing? Who the fuck are they even saving the food for? Or is it literally for themselves?

Also "go back to your homes" when half the buildings in the country are fucked, it makes no sense people would expect refugees to do that.

All the screaming get's on my tits, too. All it does it traumatises everyone around you. I've never understood why people need to verbalise their fear beyond a brief "Ah!" or whatever.

I'm glad there were no distinct rape scenes.

>>25312

Better warning than you would get in a real war.

>>25318
Are you watching it somewhere else? There’s still half an hour left of this grim misery for me on BBC Four. It’s affecting me a lot more than it did the first time.

>>25320
Yeah, I don't have a TV licence so used the internet archive linked here >>25313. Started watching about an hour earlier.

Would have prefered to see it on TV - likely would have conencted better than watching on a small monitor from 4 meters away.

>Also "go back to your homes" when half the buildings in the country are fucked, it makes no sense people would expect refugees to do that.
Coming back to this thought, I'm confilcted regarding likely human behaviours in crisis situations. On the one hand you've clearly got the kings sitting on toilet paper thrones who'll clearly make life worse for everyone around them, on the other hand I've had direct experience in how a natural disaster can bring about the best in not only myself but other people. Granted my experience hasn't involved a lack of food, only destruction of non-essential assets, but I like to think I could offer my food to someone more needy and would work to shelter whoever I could to the best of my ability. It probably depends on the community that's in crisis. We're not too isolated from one another where I'm from.

>>25318

>Who the fuck are they even saving the food for?

Rationing it to feed to able bodied workers. In a situation like this that's the grim reality of what has to be done- You have a limited supply of food, but you'll have no food at all if there's nobody to plant and attempt to cultivate the next crop.

>>25320

I really think these things just weigh heavier on you the older you get. I've seen this film more times than most people because I'm just a morbid cunt like that, but when I was younger it was a lot easier to brush it off. It was still stark and left an impression, but I could always say "shit, sure am glad that isn't happening."

When I've watched it more recently, I'm always struck with how relatable it is. It's hard not to imagine yourself in that situation. The bit where the dad is frantically trying to build some sort of shelter while the wife and kid are just wittering on about nonsense. The stress he must be feeling trying to provide his family some shred of protection from something like this.

The photos are easily my favourite part of Threads. Near the start, I thought they were genuine war photos from World War 2, drawing parallels with past atrocities. They look so plausible and convincing, and yet so harrowing.

Of course, there’s all this talk about food rations being given to people who can work, and people being told to go back to work. There’s clearly still an economy going on here. The miserable victims we are seeing are probably just futuristic dole scroungers.

>>25323
Not long after I posted that, the woman was sobbing desperately as she bashed grain with a stone to try and make flour, while there was a helicopter flying around outside. It’s now many years after the war and someone still had a functioning gun. Maybe these people are just scrotes.

Anyway, it’s over now. I must say it has really put me off the wank I was going to have.

>>25323

They make you wait 5 weeks with fuck all before you can get universal credit now with a functioning economy, so you can imagine how tight they'll be after a nuclear war. But on the plus side, at least it will be a return to the good old days where the JobCentre would actually sort you out a job.

>>25318

>Who the fuck are they even saving the food for? Or is it literally for themselves?

The food is for the people who were well behaved enough to hide underground for a full two weeks. What would enviably happen in a nuclear war is that people would come out of their shelters immediately give themselves lethal radiation poisoning and gathering up and eating all of the obvious food and die within a few months. There isn't necessarily a good way to tell who those people are until they start dying off.

The only film more existentially horrifying than Threads:

If you want to watch the American one to cheer yersen up after that, it's on YouTube.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOPaaHSjMcw

Thank God that literally nothing that happened in Threads will happen in real life.

They should make a sequel to it following the traffic warden (Steve Coogan) and his efforts to keep humanity moving against the lollipop man (Peter Serafinowicz) who wants to return to a primitivist lifestyle.

Anyway my favourite WW3 documentary is the one from 1998 that covers the conventional war in a timeline where the collapse of the Soviet Union goes wrong.

Aight, maybe Threads affected me more than I thought. I've spent the day with my parents asking how long they think their food supplies would last without shopping, and visiting my brother who's sick with pneumonia, coughing his lungs up looking like his greyed face is falling off.

I'm exhausted.

>>25328

I've now watch that advert at least 10 times, and I've come to the conclusion 'pork' and 'plenty' are euthamism for group sexual intercorse with his wife.

>>25328

>>25334

See, that's trying to be sinister, but it just doesn't come close to the chilling way Pork Man says "We've all got plenty. There's plenty to go round." with that death stare.

What's really happening is he's feeding you parts of yourself in a dark, damp room with stained wallpaper peeling from the walls, and the other diners are all decomposing, charred corpses wearing masks with crudely drawn on faces. A lesser director would have had brief flash cuts to the reality, where you briefly glimpse the victim tied to a chair and crudely gagged, muffling their screams... But they didn't need to.

>>25335

I don't know why you've created this absurd scenario when clearly his wifes name is plenty.

Hang on, I was wrong, the most horrifying film is this soviet-era Estonian advert for minced chicken. Honestly, nothing can prepare you for this.

>>25337

See this is why I'm always banging on about socialism. Without the profit motive, it's all about the purity of the artform.

>>25337
>>25338

Looks almost more like they were actually trying to put people off chicken. In a kind of reverse psychology way. I'm sure that much like anything, chicken meat was in short supply in Soviet Estonia. So it was like, yeah, we'll advertise chicken mince, just so the capitalist West won't say we don't have any, but after watching this, you're going to have nightmares everytime you think about it and not end up asking for it in the supermarket.

>>25337
Why would a socialist country have adverts?

>>25341

Because being socialist doesn't mean there's no market. There still is, it's just that it's all the same brand pretending to compete with itself. Although a lot of it was just sort of half propaganda, the authorities knew people saw all the nice things western people had and tried to mimic it so people wouldn't get jealous and revolt to turn everything back to capitalism.

Of course, there's the old joke, "Everything they told us about communism was a lie. But everything they told us about capitalism was the truth."

>>25343
Finally, someone gets it.

>>25344

Not sure that that was the part in the movie where I was struggling to keep up my suspension of disbelief.

>>25332
>I've spent the day with my parents asking how long they think their food supplies would last without shopping
How much washing up do you think you could do without any washing up liquid?

>>25356

If washing up liquid is your concern in a nuclear apocalypse, then the whole thing could end up being a bit of a letdown.