Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated July 10)
Realistic World After Nuclear War: Ignore Report Reply
Betsy Baggleford - Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:28:17 EST ID:KtqjI8IG No.13723
File: 1422455297610.jpg -(196833B / 192.22KB, 589x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 196833
What would life realistically be like following a nuclear war?

Would human survival be possible on any scale?

Are there any movies or video games which depict a post-nuclear war world realistically?
>>
Edwin Brookville - Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:31:03 EST ID:lcYadD0W No.13724 Ignore Report Reply
Noe-Scavanger is pretty good but Idk if its a nuclear aftermath or not.

Also try Fallout 1 & 2, they were much more gritty and had better story then the new ones, although it probably isn't realistic that people would be turning into giant green mutants and shit.

For movies try, The Road.
>>
cursive !M6R0eWkIpk - Fri, 30 Jan 2015 21:15:43 EST ID:8RYncBiW No.13733 Ignore Report Reply
>>13724
honestly, minus the monsters New Vegas seems pretty much back to the west. Small settlements and people just blowing each other away over a pair of boots. Change the cartoon mutants to a few like not funny mutanted infants who died by toddlerhood.

Anyone want to post stats on projected changes to the globe after Nuclear Winters of varying obscurity?
Desertification? Multiple scenarios of Sealevel??

We did post the Chernobyl Fallout map a while back.
>>
Phineas Casslespear - Sat, 31 Jan 2015 01:11:20 EST ID:UepmpbNx No.13734 Ignore Report Reply
>>13723
honestly, if we start launching nukes at each other there will likely be so much fall out that only isolated places far away from anything of value will survive. i figure the roaches will be able to take over the world no problem. this is more or less because i dont see russia or the US going under with out a hail marry barrage.

now if the power grid goes down for what ever reason then i can see some interesting end of the world shit happening.
some things to remember. there was alot more wooded areas back in the day, with that came more animals. theres more of us and less meat. im surrounded by farms, but with out gas in a car to drive to them idk if ill be able to obtain the food that they have. i figure by winter a noticable percentage of us will have starved.

the first winter will likely kill the rest.
the first thing to remember is pretty much no one has the right clothing to live through the winter months with out a constant source of heat. seeing what people consider a winter coat is rather funny....remember, lack of gas will mean the comunity will have what is around i doubt there will be enough warm clothing for everyone.
the next thing to remember is most peoples houses are not set up to be heated via a fire place assuming they have a fire place.
you burn alot of wood heating a house, if you dont have a stock pile thats excessive you will run out, you can not go around gathering lumber all winter. as time goes on the distance the lumber is from the stove will increase or become unobtainable
>>
Graham Blenkinway - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:09:15 EST ID:ibtbg7Uu No.13738 Ignore Report Reply
I liked Threads. It was pretty upsetting though.
>>
Betsy Nobberdock - Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:43:02 EST ID:5Bbiyhhl No.13739 Ignore Report Reply
>>13724
How come everyone takes a huge shit every time I say brownout?
>>
Thomas Posslehall - Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:38:07 EST ID:i6g4yRlY No.13743 Ignore Report Reply
>>13739

While taking a shit I scrolled past this and had a good chuckle.

Now I have chuckleshits.
>>
Nicholas Pellydick - Sun, 08 Feb 2015 10:03:58 EST ID:mdRCOCC7 No.13746 Ignore Report Reply
The Day After is very realistic, right up there with Threads.
>>
Sidney Sapperfield - Sun, 08 Feb 2015 16:05:51 EST ID:MJ3z6bk3 No.13748 Ignore Report Reply
>>13734
Underrated post. I wish more people here thought rationally like this.

>there was alot more wooded areas back in the day, with that came more animals
In a "grid down" situation, once the the supermarket shelves are bare everyone with a bow or gun will be in the woods looking for an animal to shoot. Though the whitetail deer population in the U.S has greatly increased over the past century there's still only 15 million of them, and 300 million of us. Within a few short years they could be hunted to extinction.

>im surrounded by farms, but with out gas in a car to drive to them idk if ill be able to obtain the food that they have
Modern Agriculture is an complex system. It's not as simple as planting a seed in the ground and coming back a few months later to harvest food. It's heavily reliant on fuel, computers, and man-made chemicals, all of which will me severely limited in a "grid down" event. The government will almost certainly find some way to keep some of these systems up and running, but it will likely be only enough to feed itself.
>>
Jarvis Dattingham - Sun, 15 Feb 2015 13:37:39 EST ID:h7t1Y+CX No.13754 Ignore Report Reply
>>13748
>Modern agriculture is heavily reliant on fuel, computers, and man-made chemicals.
This is the reason I am learning about organic farming/homesteading.
>>
Edwin Semblenet - Sun, 15 Feb 2015 13:39:41 EST ID:fsL8EEXR No.13755 Ignore Report Reply
>>13754
No it's not
>>
Edward Drirrydock - Sun, 15 Feb 2015 22:05:34 EST ID:h7t1Y+CX No.13756 Ignore Report Reply
>>13755
Cool story. Fuel for machines, yes. Computers, probably not so much. Chemicals, they spray lots of them.
>>
Archie Biddlenudge - Mon, 16 Feb 2015 19:50:19 EST ID:tRlrWhj+ No.13758 Ignore Report Reply
>>13757
Yes they do
>>
Molly Gundlefoot - Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:09:20 EST ID:ncoSNsZa No.13760 Ignore Report Reply
>>13758
Not really
>>
Rebecca Dirryshaw - Sat, 21 Feb 2015 12:51:04 EST ID:wJxe0aeS No.13762 Ignore Report Reply
>>13760

No they do.
>>
Fanny Chirringstit - Sun, 22 Feb 2015 15:36:25 EST ID:+8qJt3cp No.13763 Ignore Report Reply
>>13762
Yeah bro they do
>>
Samuel Hengerdock - Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:43:25 EST ID:LFkZNBxd No.13765 Ignore Report Reply
OP here. Threads is the best nuclear film I've ever seen.

The image of the post-nuclear world it presents is that of an irradiated, depopulated neo-feudal world, where the remnants of emergency governments rule like brutal police states, the generation growing up are brain damaged due to a combination of fallout induced birth defects and undernourishment and the second generation is very unlikely to be fertile or produce viable offspring.

In other words, when you hear the warning sirens, don't run from ground zero, run toward it.
>>
Isabella Sappertog - Wed, 25 Feb 2015 07:50:05 EST ID:RDlxqepr No.13768 Ignore Report Reply
What about living off the sea. Bring on another pirate era
>>
Emma Callyforth - Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:38:53 EST ID:OFEvtghq No.13769 Ignore Report Reply
1424918333341.png -(66215B / 64.66KB, 300x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>13768
Fact: All pirates are gay. ALL of them

Have fun with your gay pirate utopia
>>
Reuben Hettingman - Thu, 26 Feb 2015 04:55:05 EST ID:RDlxqepr No.13771 Ignore Report Reply
>>13769
>Fact
show me some statistics or numbers bitch, then get back to me.
>>
James Chibberfield - Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:06:27 EST ID:KVCS7uR1 No.13773 Ignore Report Reply
>>13748
yea i mean theres obviously more to this. we as a population are not as disiplined to actually do this. who here lives near a water source that can provide a 10+ gallons a day per family unit.
>>
Eliza Darrycocke - Mon, 02 Mar 2015 21:33:30 EST ID:1u2pETor No.13781 Ignore Report Reply
>>13756
>computers, not so much
The irrigation on big farms is automated, and I would bet pesticide sprays are too on some farms.

Not to mention deliveries and pickups rely on software. Hell, all modern shipping and transportation would grind to a halt without computers.
>>
Sidney Funkinline - Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:57:57 EST ID:KVCS7uR1 No.13783 Ignore Report Reply
>>13781
id say theres even more then that

after the first harvest that power went out how will we till the fields? most farms dont have plow horses. on meat farms how do we bring in feed? the entire farm system is dependent on gas to get materials around.
>>
Storm Strife - Thu, 05 Mar 2015 03:15:44 EST ID:0/1thKZW No.13784 Ignore Report Reply
1425543344529.jpg -(103476B / 101.05KB, 610x430) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Why is no one asking the question of can we survive the cannibalistic empire thats going to arise from the ashes of society to eat the only viable foodsource left until we rebuild some kind of infrastructure, ourselves.?

Or is that what zombie movies are alluding to? Brains are of a similarity to caviar to a cannibal maybe? To the point where a cannibalistic hunter group may scream BRRRRRAAAAAAAIIIIINNNNSSSSSSSS before they attack and try to kill you and eat you? lol
>>
Jack Bocklechane - Thu, 05 Mar 2015 06:31:13 EST ID:3VlPy42e No.13785 Ignore Report Reply
Realistic nuclear wars would be to the survivors rather non-nuclear.

Only cities, industrial centers and military bases get nuked.

Oil runs out. No more supplies going to supermarkets. No more drugs being produced and supplied. People will start dropping like flies from disease and hunger.

Basically, nuclear war will reduce the Western world to some third-world hellhole.

The majority of people dying from nuclear war will die from famine, flu and diarrea or something.
>>
William Gittingcocke - Sun, 08 Mar 2015 09:30:30 EST ID:kA/fXOxu No.13786 Ignore Report Reply
>>13723

If you read about what Europe was like during the black plague, you may get the best known impression of what the world would be like following an apocalypse.
>>
Emma Grandham - Sun, 08 Mar 2015 14:10:03 EST ID:3Swv8ija No.13787 Ignore Report Reply
>>13785
I always assumed that there's going to be knowledge of a) the things we can do and b) less knowledge but still lots about how we did them among survivors. How far technology falls and how quick it recovers will be down to how punishing the specifics are (time of year, location, nature of strikes). I think it's quite imaginable that if people make an effort to keep the knowledge going we wouldn't lose very much. It takes a visionary years to invent something from scratch but if you know it can be done and have a rough idea how it works someone fairly bright can knock it up in a few weeks. You could go through the industrial revolution again before the first generation have become old. It all depends on what shape the population is in when people stop dying to basic survival needs. ie how much effort is made to preserve knowledge and keep things working and how long it takes to stop shrinking and start growing again.
>>
Nathaniel Bardville - Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:04:42 EST ID:3VlPy42e No.13791 Ignore Report Reply
>>13787
True, but you must remember that information has a decay time. Libraries will collapse, books will rot, digital information erodes.

If the time between survival and reconstruction is too long, you're looking at a technological collapse that will make the fall of the West-Roman empire look like a joke.
>>
Martha Genningforth - Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:07:00 EST ID:IMDFSAFK No.13792 Ignore Report Reply
>>13784
Why do you think humans would be the only animal to survive? I think without the presence of civilization and constant encroachment of society the wildlife population would flourish. You'd have mutated Elk the size of a school bus running around. If anything we'd band together in some form of monster-hunter questing situation.
>>
James Fungerfoot - Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:11:16 EST ID:xHMdDxDQ No.13793 Ignore Report Reply
>>13791
Absolutely. Information has a decay time, how quickly society stabilises and has time to re learn is key. That said the dark ages weren't actually too backwards, a lot less was lost than people think.
>>
>>
Martha Genningforth - Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:12:03 EST ID:IMDFSAFK No.13794 Ignore Report Reply
>>13734
>Implying I'm not living on a completely self-sufficient homestead heated by wood and powered by running water.
>Implying I don't own animals, grow gardens and have enough ammo to hunt my food for years to come
>Implying I haven't spent the last half of a decade saving up excess firewood
>Implying I'm even remotely close to a city or even a town
>Implying whatever happens to the world will have little to no effect on me
>>
Nigger Pigglewone - Sun, 15 Mar 2015 12:16:05 EST ID:IOLdxcZ8 No.13796 Ignore Report Reply
>>13794
you realize you fail at reading right? i accounted for people like you

ima say you die cause your a cock sure faggot though
>>
Polly Bittingwug - Sun, 15 Mar 2015 14:52:02 EST ID:KODCSU/6 No.13797 Ignore Report Reply
I think the majority of humans that weren't killed in the nuclear war would die from hunger, disease, or exposure within the first couple of years. The decrease in humans would allow all other nature to flourish. I believe that if you could somehow make it through the first couple of years, you MIGHT stand a chance if you could find a safe place and banded together with other survivors. That's just my guess though.
>>
Simon Wunningfield - Tue, 17 Mar 2015 02:24:42 EST ID:2LD7TaH6 No.13799 Ignore Report Reply
1426573482761.jpg -(194808B / 190.24KB, 640x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Regarding the comments about nature flourishing after humans aren't around to destroy it; In the Fallout universe and other post apocalyptic fictions, it's stated the the nuclear damage on the soul would leave the Earth almost completely dead. Maybe some cactuses or a green spot here and there, but mostly desert. Is there any truth to this?
>>
Matilda Hellygold - Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:00:21 EST ID:3VlPy42e No.13800 Ignore Report Reply
>>13799
>Maybe some cactuses or a green spot here and there, but mostly desert. Is there any truth to this?

No. Not a single thing. That's just Christian Doomsday shit intermingled with post-apocalyptica.

Nuclear war CAN cause horribly dead deserts, but no one is going to nuke empty land when you have cities and military bases to bomb.
>>
Ebenezer Bimmerdale - Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:01:35 EST ID:jcAT299K No.13809 Ignore Report Reply
>>13799
I think potential near extinction could happen. Not so much as some lasting "scar" on the world but if you have a fallout where the temperature drops and daylight vanishes a lot of plants and animals will die. Many species entirely. The near loss of plant life would wipe many animals out. If only a few isolated patches remain then while they may spread in time it may take years, decades or centuries for to world to be largely empty.

If there was too little light for photosynthesis a few plants and seeds may survive, but kill enough and life would be set back to a very basic level again.

In fallout there are contaminated areas but things do grow, it's just they've been set back. There are crops and animals. A good specific example of what I mean is the DC wasteland and the trees. There are no live trees in the wasteland except that one bit. All trees died, none grew in their place because there was nothing there for them to grow from. The wasteland there is largely irradiated but even the clean spot have no trees because all trees died, trees don't come from nowhere, someone has to plant a seed. Which happened and now there's a bunch of trees slowly spreading out. If the locals protect them for a few decades more it might be enough to take hold. Meanwhile in Zion life continues as ever because it wasn't tainted.

There's no scar on the soul in fallout or any realistic apocalypse either. There are local phenomena and populations recovering which might give this affectation for a while. Especially in combination. I imagine as radiation decays and populations grow things would actually explode to life after a long time recovering slowly.
>>
Nigger Wogglebatch - Sun, 29 Mar 2015 05:41:38 EST ID:nIdipm+A No.13830 Ignore Report Reply
>What would life realistically be like following a nuclear war?
Like shit
>>
Jack Cecklenut - Sun, 19 Apr 2015 04:36:19 EST ID:0CY3xzYr No.13875 Ignore Report Reply
What about the nuclear facilities that are all fucked up post nukes falling? Seems like the radiation from those are more dangerous than radiation from dropped bombs.

I think we'd all be fucked.
>>
Angus Blatherford - Sun, 26 Apr 2015 20:30:55 EST ID:lfTTTnQj No.13886 Ignore Report Reply
It really depends on what kind of nuclear war we're talking about.

An 80s-style global thermonuclear exchange isn't likely because there's nowhere near as many weapons now as there were 30 years ago, and their reliability is in question. And even if the U.S. and Russia create new weapons, test ban keeps them from trying them out.

That's not to say the U.S. and Russia couldn't throw down, but it wouldn't be as bad as depicted in The Day After or Threads because there'd be a good bit fewer weapons, and smaller ones as well. But that said, even presuming both sides stuck largely with counterforce strategies, there's still millions dead and massive damage in a lot of spots. If you're on the East Coast, s'long, you're fucked. But there are areas that aren't of much strategic worth, and if you get there, you can be viable depending on how the fallout scatters and how long it lasts (there's fallout maps about that give you a rough idea of what to expect).

In a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, the safest place to be is the Southern Hemisphere, with the exception of NATO-friendly countries like Australia and New Zealand, or where there's military installations (not sure what Russia has in the south).

U.S.-China war would be tough on the U.S. but would wipe China off the map, so unless they've got a death wish, ain't happening. I think they have something like 400 weapons, and even if they used all of them on the U.S. , it wouldn't be a nation-destroying event. In reality, if they were going out like that, they'd still save a precious few to use on Japan, South Korea and possibly Russia. Meanwhile, the U.S. would have more than enough to turn large chunks of the country into glass with plenty of leftover weapons to keep Putin from feeling froggy.

Pakistan-India? Would suck to be there, but probably no effects outside of that region.
>>
Barnaby Pettinglure - Sun, 10 May 2015 20:12:40 EST ID:o+fpt44Q No.13916 Ignore Report Reply
>>13723
>What would life realistically be like following a nuclear war?

Really shitty, but not too terribly much different than if we were to have a conventional war with another major power.

>Would human survival be possible on any scale?
Most people in small towns that are away from war-manufacturing, nuke sites, military bases and economic centers would be generally fine. Bear in mind that I'm thinking from a US point of view. Europe and industrial east asia are literally the ground zeroes for a modern war as far as I can see and are probably going to be fucked anally.
Sure, fallout is a thing, but nuclear weapon fallout and residual radiation is really only a threat for around 14 weeks after the event. Your big killer would be the fact that agriculture would be raped for a whole growing season (at least) and distribution infrastructure would be pretty wrecked too. No one would have food unless they lived in an area that has high native food production with local distribution.

>Are there any movies or video games which depict a post-nuclear war world realistically?

Everyone mentions Threads, but I've never seen it, so I don't know...

Nothing I've seen really does, but I'd say that the best things to watch would be documentaries about what it's like to live in one of those war-torn african or middle eastern shit holes that never has a government for too long. Look for countries on wikipedia that have a high number of 17-24 year olds, but a low number of older people and then watch what it's like there...that should clue you in.
>>
George Trotwater - Mon, 11 May 2015 09:34:02 EST ID:pzX/FtO7 No.13917 Ignore Report Reply
>>13830

This. How is this even a legit question?
>>
Beatrice Blathershit - Wed, 13 May 2015 14:54:30 EST ID:xP56IAYQ No.13919 Ignore Report Reply
>>13734
"i figure by winter a noticable percentage of us will have starved.

the first winter will likely kill the rest.
the first thing to remember is pretty much no one has the right clothing to live through the winter months with out a constant source of heat. seeing what people consider a winter coat is rather funny....remember, lack of gas will mean the comunity will have what is around i doubt there will be enough warm clothing for everyone.
the next thing to remember is most peoples houses are not set up to be heated via a fire place assuming they have a fire place.
you burn alot of wood heating a house, if you dont have a stock pile thats excessive you will run out, you can not go around gathering lumber all winter. as time goes on the distance the lumber is from the stove will increase or become unobtainable"

You're a whimpy faggot
>>
Barnaby Paggletock - Wed, 20 May 2015 02:50:18 EST ID:8AnNYUsA No.13930 Ignore Report Reply
>>13919
I burn roughly 2.4m2 of wood a year, half hardwoods, half soft and a little coal. That is pure luxury though, I could survive on half of that if we didn't insist on having temperatures up over 28C.
>>
Hugh Dankinworth - Thu, 21 May 2015 00:04:18 EST ID:Z0ujH+lX No.13932 Ignore Report Reply
>>13919

bitch i live in arizona, bring on the winter lol i think ill survive
>>
George Dopperpedge - Fri, 22 May 2015 18:57:55 EST ID:i6g4yRlY No.13934 Ignore Report Reply
>>13932

Nuclear winter.... tends to affect the entire planet.
>>
Augustus Tillingman - Wed, 27 May 2015 00:42:56 EST ID:+fQ3mVJo No.13944 Ignore Report Reply
>>13934

cute shit bitch, however the poster i was replying to was referring to seasonal winter not nuclear winter. please stfu and gtfo plzkthx
>>
Henry Blobbledetch - Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:00:16 EST ID:o+fpt44Q No.13950 Ignore Report Reply
>>13934
Nuclear winter....doesn't actually exist.
>>
Nathaniel Blunnerfed - Tue, 02 Jun 2015 19:22:17 EST ID:it4qmrVO No.13951 Ignore Report Reply
>>13919
>by winter
Try a week

Many western countries has no ww3 stocks anymore
If the trade breaks down - empty shelves
>>
Basil Piblingsidging - Thu, 02 Jul 2015 22:49:26 EST ID:C+L+xScU No.13986 Ignore Report Reply
I think it would be like When The Wind Blows. Those who did not die in the initial bombing wouldn't last more than a week before they succumbed to radiation poisoning or starvation.

And your idea about having an underground bunker or turning an air craft carrier into a life raft? Forget it. Neither of those plans are actually feasible for a long period of time. Multi-generational vaults and survivor camps are nothing but movie make believe. Global Nuclear war would be the end of the human race. Dying in the initial blast would be the best thing you could do.

I don't think life itself would end. Plants, insects, burrowing mammals and lizards. These things might take a hit but a few would survive and in 5-10 thousand years in would be as though humanity never existed at all.
>>
James Mother Fucking Randi - Fri, 07 Aug 2015 23:41:24 EST ID:EoOnX9r6 No.14040 Ignore Report Reply
1439005284221.jpg -(36697B / 35.84KB, 357x336) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Let me say I've only skimmed this thread so forgive me if I touch on topics already covered.

A realistic post nuclear war:
It first depends on the scale of the war. Even though initially only strategic areas would be targeted, shortly after the first volley people in charge of the worlds various nuclear arsenals would probably let them all/most fly.

Nuclear fallout would be wide spread across the land. Nuclear winter would be the result in most if not all places. Nearly all plant life and most animal life not cared for by humans would die.

The air would be toxic to various degrees depending on how fallout propagates and how close you are to impact sites. The water and soil would also be affected similarly.
All electronics any where near a blast site would be entirely destroyed by EMP.
Almost all if not all agriculture would stop.

Humans are tough litter buggers though, we will almost certainly survive in small numbers. All humans not in fallout shelters or similar protective structures would be instantly killed if they were near a blast site. Those out side the immediate zone of the blast would die a slow lingering death.
Those even further would die even slower deaths over a period of years.

Those even further may survive if they manage to find enough food and water to survive.
If these humans survive long enough to breed ( if not made sterile), their children will mutated and gross and humanity will probably never recover genetically.

Fallout in the air and sea would ensure that places not even hit by a nuke would be contaminated. Nearly every inch of the earth will be contaminated even if only slightly. These places will at first provide a foot hold for humanity to survive, though it wont be easy. But over time these places will become more and more contaminated.

The humans who were shelters or other wise protected will probably stay underground for a long while (depending on the amount of damage and radiation) would eventually have to leave their holes for supplies and equipment once what they have is depleted or breaks down. If they still have the means to do so they would either rebuild or adapt to their new world. I may have a biased opinion, but I feel that it's gonna be hard as hell to fully wipe out humanity. There will always be some hole or crevice that people will be crawling out of.

At this point if we can't rebuild or adapt our only option would be to leave the planet. Unless it's the future or the governments of the world have some secret teraforming tech then even that is only a stop gap measure. Because with known and speculative technology would take centuries to make even a fairly nice planet habitable.

Even if humans don't have a hand in the rebuilding and let nature take its course, things would eventually calm down. That is unless nuclear winter covers the whole earth. But that wouldn't even spell the end for life (non human). Eventually some other creature would evolve and take our place as the dominate life form here.
Just like mammals did to the dinosaurs.


>Removing the sci fi wackiness of the Fallout series of games, it's a pretty accurate picture of what would happen if you add nuclear winter.
>>
James Mother Fucking Randi - Fri, 07 Aug 2015 23:47:47 EST ID:EoOnX9r6 No.14041 Ignore Report Reply
>>14040
Cliff notes versions

>Any one near a blast dies
>Every one else suffers
>It gets worse, much much worse before it gets better.
>Slowly we either adapt or die
> we rebuild a new world on the ashes of the old.

or
>We don't survive, humans go extinct
>Millions of years pass and new life takes our place.

A note I forgot to mention in my previous post is that life that already exists would adapt and flourish in the post nuclear world. The main one would be mushrooms. They would blanket the land with their glowing caps.
>>
Ebenezer Nicklegold - Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:26:24 EST ID:3V2NVGgw No.14042 Ignore Report Reply
>>14041

Shrôooooooomacolypse! Best after party ever, unlike the flood. Washed out all the topsoil when those glaciers melted overnight and all.
>>
Basil Tootgold - Tue, 01 Sep 2015 02:45:28 EST ID:nS7Lq1Gd No.14109 Ignore Report Reply
>>13723
The Life And DeAth of The Earth is a book for you OP


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.