>>20855
Threads is great.

>>20856

I'm a bit too shaken at the moment to process anything other than fear. Both of the futility of even bothering to prepare to survive, because the chances are me and everyone I know would be dead in the first few weeks, and if I did what would I do? I've started looking up the shelf life of foods and doing calculations for how much food and water I would need to survive the first 2 years post strike, on the off chance that I did survive. I don't think any other piece of media has affected me so deeply in a long time.

>>20857
Yeah it's fucking horrendous. When you see the flash, kill yourself. Best way out.

>>20857
Eh I figure it will be bad but Threads is deliberately a worst case scenario. Just remember the 3 ps; pigeons, pets and people.

I'm lucky enough to know a few farmers, a guy who grows ganja and I can make decent moonshine. A piano shouldn't be hard to come by so maybe I can set up a pub and every night at 8pm we will sing the Cheers theme-song to make the post-apocalypse more hopeful. You lads are welcome to come along and Cheflad can experiment with radioactive cuisine in the kitchen.

The thing about disaster movies is you realize everything will be right if we don't act like cunts to each other. They play on the idea that in mutual adversity people don't come together which is at worst only true 50% of the time.

>>20858
I've always thought about caving my flatmates heads in if we're going the 'fuck it' route. Maybe I will put the milk in first when there is nobody to stop me.

Threads is a sobering experience. I've seen it a few times now and it always leaves me feeling empty afterwards.

>The thing about disaster movies is you realize everything will be right if we don't act like cunts to each other.
Honestly I think the force of law that's stopping people from acting like absolute cunts is paper thin. You can see a direct example in the cunt riots of 2011 - when people think there is no law and order, things get very ugly very fast. I remember reading some quote about how we're only ever a permanent power cut away from a vicious and complete breakdown of society. I reckon it's true.

"Nasty, brutish and short", and all that. Be thankful that the government and police exist, even if you disagree with their policies and behaviour.

>>20860

Okay Burke, take a day off.

>>20860
My grandad escaped a civil war. The way it started was simply like a riot before the militias invaded the capital city. I have no faith in society and that's why I envy the Americans and their love to bear arms.

You will probably do okay if you live in a small town.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GJttnC8PoA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCTKcd2Ko98


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0VcT-XWb7M


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=milbW4RDIco


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6U9T3R3EQg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3y0WmONP4E

>>20859
>The thing about disaster movies is you realize everything will be right if we don't act like cunts to each other. They play on the idea that in mutual adversity people don't come together which is at worst only true 50% of the time.
Oh teenlad. Pic related.

>>20864
The fate of mothers in these situations really upsets me.

>>20864
Didn't that image turn out to be fabrication?

>>20864

I feel it's more 'teenlad' to assume that humans wouldn't co-operate (which is how we survived hostile conditions for thousands of years pre-civilisation), but would instead act like they do in post-apocalyptic films and games. But maybe that's how we would act as people conditioned by such media.


>>20859
>Threads is deliberately a worst case scenario

I remember reading (it may have been on here) that Threads is actually a relatively optimistic account of what would happen in a nuclear war. I guess there seemed to be quite a lot of survivors for such an attack.

>>20864
I don't know why, but this shite is how most teenlads in the west think shit goes down. Maybe in highly individualistic cultures, this may be true. In shitty societies and cultures like in Somalia and Afghanistan, when there is no central government, things just fall back to how they used to be, i.e. tribalism and religion. When the so-called militia invaded Mogadishu in the 1990s, the central government didn't flee, it just got broken down into tribal factions. Soldiers just took their weapons and joined their clan's militia.

The religious fanatics got funding from the middle east and hoovered up all the minor clans who couldn't defend themselves. Borders were redrawn, and you have Somalia as it is now.

Maybe Fallout 4 nonsense is more likely to happen in western countries where a sense of community doesn't really exist.

>>20866
The "GUMMINT CUMMIN FER ARE GERNS" bit in particular suggests to me that the author may be Merkan rather than Bosnian.

>>20869
The author runs SHTFscool, so he has an interest in playing to the American survivalist crowd, but nobody seems to have called him out as a liar, so who knows.
The other accounts on the internet are varied. Here's one from the other side of the spectrum:
'Second, this game portrays people as getting colder and more selfish as the time went on. It was exactly the opposite. Everyone shared everything. People helped each other in ways they would never do today. Notion that someone stole or killed from others is laughable. You have people on the hills shelling you with up to three thousand shells per day, trust me, breaking into someone’s place is the last thing on your mind. You need help. You ask, others will share. Plus, police was more effective in those days then they are today.'

>>20867

Humans co-operate, yes, but we also compete. It seems to me that if co-operation were such a strong human instinct as you hope, we wouldn't be having a discussion about nuclear war in the first place.

The funny thing about modern society is that in a way we are all working together, we all contribute to the machine that operates days after day in bringing us food, electricity, and entertainment. But in so doing we have isolated ourselves. The denser our populations become, the more antisocial the individuals within become. We live in flats with neighbours above, below, and on either side, but don't know any of them by name.

The presumption that the breakdown of society would result in violence and anarchy is presumably based on the assumption that it is only the provision of food, water, electricity etc that modern society gives, that actually holds the entire thing together. People who would have been in opposing tribes if left to the "natural order" live side by side, but it only works as long as the incentive is there. And in general terms, this holds true- In cases of power cuts and such we often see people reverting to this tribal sort of mindset.

In addition one has to consider the instinct for self preservation, in the face of almost undeniably inadequate resources. We can harmoniously share our resources only as long as there are enough resources to be shared. In an event where clean water is scarce and food even moreso, as it would be in any urban centre after a nuclear attack, people are forced to compete in order to ensure their own survival, and we're back to the start of the whole circle again.

Humanity is a young species and we are still far closer to our most feral instincts than we would like to admit. When push comes to shove, are you going to be the one who puts your hand up and says "Okay, I'll be the one who starves to death. Take one for the team, you know" or are you going to crack someone's skull open to take their share? The answer isn't the one you probably want it to be.

>>20867
Groups restructure along racial lines when the group is directly threatened or indirectly through competition for constrained resources. Just imagine an episode from one of the many American TV series that document Supermax prisons (or the BBC's recent expo on Wandsworth), then unimagine the prison guards. There'd be initial carnage, which would simmer once the non-dominant races have been obliterated. Only then would the dominant group begin infighting.

>>20872

Minority groups would have the advantage of greater community cohesion relative to the majority population. Unless the majority decided to systematically wipe them out, they would probably thrive. Your average white Briton doesn't know their neighbours, which contrasts starkly with the close ties of many ethnic minority communities.

Lads, I'm getting deja vu about this discussion on human nature. I'm sure we had a similar thread before Christmas?

>>20871
>Humans co-operate, yes, but we also compete. It seems to me that if co-operation were such a strong human instinct as you hope, we wouldn't be having a discussion about nuclear war in the first place.

However I was in Sheffield yesterday and most of the buildings seemed intact. In fact the Cold War ended more or less peacefully.

Wendt wrote a hugely influential paper on the topic in 1992 that I recommend you have a look at. I admit it might start a little thick but he makes very good points on how human nature is more than the realist school would make out:
https://ic.ucsc.edu/~rlipsch/Pol272/Wendt.Anarch.pdf

The thing I think you're missing is that by our nature we are a social species that cooperates for the common good. That *can* change but its not set in stone and although you might argue technology isolates us I don't think our society is one liable to turn in on itself in the face of hardship. Indeed in cases where societies have done such as Liberia or Rwanda we can see effects which stretch back generations that in the case of Liberia or the Second Congo War were later fed into by outside sources.

Our nature is to form an orderly ration queue and tut at various hardships. By all means if only paranoid survivalists survive then yes we will live in shittier times but that is the world they choose to live in.

>>20872
Nonsense. When groups of people are facing common adversity they don't turn on one another but instead are bound by it. When you're struggling to get by genocide is completely irrational to worry about or waste resources on.

You can point to Supermax prisons but I can point to the common bond soldiers share, the 'spirit of the blitz', that one bastard boss that co-workers are united in hatred of and how working class areas are much more prone to help one another. There is even an argument advanced in FP a few days back that makes the case that war is good for society for this very reason:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/17/the-case-against-peace-syria-europe-brexit-donald-trump/

>>20872
Doesn't explain why or how Islam unites all those races and makes them a new violent group. Especially in prisons.

>>20874
>When groups of people are facing common adversity they don't turn on one another but instead are bound by it.
Until, as >>20871 points out, food and other essentials become life-threateningly scarce.

Don't get me wrong, I'm of the opinion that humans are social creatures by nature and the "individualist" mindset is basically dressed-up selfishness. That doesn't change the reality of the social dynamic.

>>20874

A fair post lad, but it seems you're envisioning a post apocalypse that causes about as much social turmoil as, say, a bad snow storm. Our nature is to tut and moan while stubbornly getting on with it, but that only works when there are rations to go round and things to get on with.

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".

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

>>20881

>In the event of nuclear war, Britain would most likely be proper fucked.

Really? How'd you work that one out?

>>20882

I assume because we're a tiny country with high population densities and not enough arable land to feed ourselves.

>>20883
We do. We don't have enough arable land to overfeed ourselves on a diet with a huge meat component and maintain a multi billion pound food export industry, but we certainly have enough arable land to feed ourselves.

>>20884
Even if that land is mostly irradiated?

>>20885
Soil is naturally radioactive in large parts. And it's a curious nuclear war scenario in which rural areas are targeted.

>>20886

I wasn't imagining that they'd be targeted, just that blast zones of bombs landing on cities would cover a lot of countryside because we're so tightly packed. I'm willing to concede that I don't know what I'm talking about.

>>20882

We have the primary ballistic missile early warning system for Europe and America. If you want to nuke the west, you'll want to take us out first. That's not a difficult task, because we're a small and crowded island.

The Russians would most likely use R-36M2 MIRV ICBMs for an initial strike. They have an active fleet of 68 of these missiles, each carrying ten 800kt warheads. One of those warheads dropped on a large city could kill 300,000 to 500,000 people. Across all their launch vehicles, Russia had a total of 1,735 active nuclear warheads as of March 2016.

Once you've taken out Fylingdales, you have nine warheads left over on the first missile. Instantly killing 5% of our population and obliterating our civil infrastructure is essentially a freebie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fylingdales

>>20888

You can simulate a nuclear attack at the link below.

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

>>20887
The blast zone likely wouldn't. The fallout might, sure, but if we're in a situation where multiple cities are basically gone then a) happily there are a whole lot fewer mouths to worry about feeding and b) we'll have more pressing concerns than the cancer risk from eating food grown in irradiated soil.

>>20889
I would only have second or third degree burns if a R-36M2 MIRV ICBM hit Westminster. That's a relief.

>>20891

Remember kids, duck and cover.

>>20892
That is actually good advice. Radiation is blocked by pretty much anything with mass, and the more mass you can put between yourself and the source, the better your chances.

>>20893
I'd better stand behind your mom then.

>>20891

I'm guessing you've never had a third degree burn, I'd rather be emulsified than survive with any significant burns.

>>20895

I'm guessing you don't understand sarcasm.

>>20893

It's not really the ionising radiation you need to worry about initially. That's a later hazard, if and when fallout occurs. Airblast detonations don't cause any significant fallout and maximise the damage inflicted.

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; firefighting efforts are futile, even if the fire brigade and the communications infrastructure remains intact. Threads reflects this quite accurately - many who survive the initial explosion will die shortly afterwards due to fire.

The other big killer is, perhaps surprisingly, flying glass. After the heat blast, a pressure wave will smash every window within a large radius with enormous force. Anyone standing near a window will be cut to ribbons.

This explains some of the seemingly ineffectual advice given in Protect and Survive. Whitewashing your windows and closing your curtains is a really useful protective step. The whitewash will reflect away much of the heat and reduce the chances of your curtains catching fire. The curtains will contain much of the flying glass.

This video explains the effects of a nuclear blast with chilling clarity.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GJttnC8PoA

>>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.