Realistically what would be the overall casualties during a Nuclear War and its subsequent fallout? Personally I don't think it'd be the world ender people claim it would be and I could see hundreds of millions of people surviving such an event.

>>63851878 (OP)
not enough

>>63851878 (OP)
I bet the total death toll would be lower than you might think, maybe like half of mankind gets wiped out at the worst and that's including all the starvation when global supply chains collapse, but the real problem is going to be the fact that in the aftermath most of humanity's heavy industry and mass manufacturing capabilities will be severely diminished, we're talking sent back to the 1970s technology-wise. South America, Africa, and a lot of Oceania will be virtually untouched but they probably don't have the self-sufficient industrial base to manufacture everything that makes modern life possible. That's worst case scenario though, in reality I think you'd be surprised at how many people and infrastructure survive in the US, Europe, and East Asia.

>>63851878 (OP)
A nuclear war can be anything from a single tactical warhead striking a remote understaffed military base out in the desert to everyone in the world launching everything they got against major cities.

Ypur question is about as dumb as how many people would die in a car crash.

>>63851971
Fine how many people would die in a Nuclear conflict where all Major Nuclear nations struck eachother in a MAD scenario? Is that detailed enough of a question for you?

>>63851979
It is, but thats also a pretty pointless scenario, as the smart move from any neutral state would be to keep theirs in the silos while others nuke each other and come out after the exchange as the only ones in the world with nukes.

To answer your question tho, if Russia and Nato went at it probably around half a billion people, and around 100 million Russians.

>>63851878 (OP)
It's definitly not going to end the world, nuclear winter was a fearmongering hypothesis made up by anti-nuclear activists to try and create so much backlash against nukes to completely defund them. Whether that is a good thing or not I leave up to you to decide, personaly I say it was good since nukes are gay and ruined the good old conventional wars.

The majority of humanity would survive in a complete nuclear exchange as they would only be used to target reinforced underground military bases in bum-fuck nowhere and population centers, meaning that the ones producing food and actually contributing to society would survive, though with a potentially worsened harvest due to fallout. The average lifespan of the survivors would also decrease due to hightened cancer-rates, but it would not be at a world-ending scale, more than enough for people to have one or two generations of kids before catching something deadly.

Economies would tank as most of the advanced manufacturing would be wiped out, but it's not a back to the stone age level, at worst we would probably go back to the late 1800s in terms of technology as whilst the more modern stuff would still exist, the knowhow to produce it along with the production chains would be wiped.

Society would probably survive, but nations that didn't catch too many nukes could potentially try to go and conquer other nations that just lost all their ability to fight, so I'd expect the borders to shift by a lot.

>tldr
idfk I'm just speculating, but it wouldn't be as bad as movies and media has been portraying it for the last 70 years.

>>63851878 (OP)
1.2 billion in the first 4 weeks. 3.5 total over a year.

>>63851878 (OP)
>100 million in the initial blasts
>300 million after the initial blasts within the first week from injuries and acute radiation poisoning
>1 billion within first 1 month from shortage of water and medicine
>around 5 billion people from starvation within the first 3 years after the initial blasts
After that everyone that is going to die from the immediate effects of acute radiation poisoning and the collapse of infrastructure are pretty much dead, and the rest of the human population can start to recover. Human population doubles back to current day numbers within 50-100 years from the initial blasts, while suffering 10% increased incidence rate of cancers from the left over radiation.

>source: my gaping anus

>>63851957
Africa and Asia will be hit the worst from the collapse of industrial agriculture and global infrastructure. China will be extra dead.

>>63851957
>lower
At worst 15-25%. Humans are fucking hardy animals and nuclear war would concentrate on cities, areas that don't produce anything but mixed race abominations and debt.
>muh nuckulr wint-
>all the authors are jews
There's a odd dichotomy between "CO2 causes global warming!" and "too much CO2 will cause a ice age!"
>some fucking retard
Soot is HEAVIER THAN AIR, and it..... FALL(s)OUT of it!

>>63856514
Nuclear winter is a myth, and I doubt the validity of the studies that say nuking cities would cause firestorms and launch a huge amount of soot into the atmosphere, BUT there have been multiple instances of a volcanic eruption throwing so much ash into the atmosphere that it has caused global cooling effect. Latest such eruption happened in 1815 when Mount Tambora erupted in fucking Indonesia and caused "The Year Without Summer" in Europe, and cooled the global temperature by almost 2 degrees C for a year.

So yeah, soot is heavier than air, but it still takes a long fucking time for it to fall to the ground if it gets ejected into the upper atmosphere.

>>63851878 (OP)
>Realistically what would be the overall casualties during a Nuclear War and its subsequent fallout?

The initial MAD situation would probably kill less than 10% of the global population, maybe 25% as a worse case scenario. The real problem would be the collapse in infrastructure, supply lines, agricultural/food production, and telecommunication. I don't actually know if *Nuclear Winter is real, it may or may not be, but the nuclear electromagnetic pulse created by so many nukes would probably fry or otherwise compromise our modern satellite and wireless systems. The vast quantities of nuclear particulate would also make life "difficult" for centuries: it would be in the rain, in the water, in the dust, the wind would pick it up and compromise health and fertility in essentially all vertebrates (bugs, plants, mushrooms, germs, slime-based organisms, don't mind radiation so much).

It wouldn't "end the world" everyone in the thread likes to repeat; it would "end the world as we know it though", and maybe as many as 1-3 billion people (mostly children and seniors) would probably die from miscellaneous bullshit; disease, malnutrition, crime, and normal winter.

*
>>63853470 >>63856514 >>63856596

Assuming it isn't a possibility though is retarded and irresponsible.
If it's too hot you can just take a jacket off, but if it's too cold and you didn't bring one you can't put it on.

you just need to shower if you get fallout on you. Then youll be fine

>>63851878 (OP)
The actual bombs wouldn't kill many % but the subsequent collapse of supply lines would see billions starve.

>>63856498
The US, Japan and Brazil would be hit hard by the end of the nitrate imports.

Most weapons used are in the 100kt and can achieve their targets within 1 hour. There is a distinct lack of Anti-Ballistic preparation in nuclear capable nations so achieving their target is virtually garanteed.

But all targets are of strategic value, that being national infrastructure and defence. So if you don’t live next to a target you’ll survive initially. Theirs no point

More casualties will come from the collapse of infrastructure, panic and fallout. There will be little if any warning of attack and many populations will assume society has collapsed, in effect collapsing society itself.

“Nuclear winter” is probable, caused primarily from the fires that will not be contended with as emergency services struggle to deal with an attack. Coupled with fallout this could severely hinder crop yield and animal life. Severe wildfires and volcanic eruptions we’ve seen recently have had an impact on global temperature at worst and at best disrupted travel.

Lastly, as there are very few if any strategic targets south of the equator; anyone below the equator will have a relatively high chance of coming through it unscathed. Depending on stockpiles and how populations react.

tl;dr: Shits bad and will end our way of life but not total extinction.

>>63856966
1. You're retard.
2. You're gay.
3. Actually bother to read a paper or book before you post.

>>63852042
>as the smart move from any neutral state would be to keep theirs in the silos while others nuke each
wrong, you don't know the target of an icbm.
an american ibcm flying over russia might go for russia, or china.
want to wait till two of your three nuclear triads are gone?

What if the entire world fired their entire nuclear stockpile at Israel? Would it open a portal to hell?

>>63856841
>The vast quantities of nuclear particulate would also make life "difficult" for centuries: it would be in the rain, in the water, in the dust, the wind would pick it up and compromise health and fertility in essentially all vertebrates (bugs, plants, mushrooms, germs, slime-based organisms, don't mind radiation so much).

"Difficult" as in "small but noticeable increase in cancer rates".

>Assuming it isn't a possibility though is retarded and irresponsible.
What's retarded and irresponsible was the agenda driven by nuclear disarmament nutters who kept pushing the Nuclear Winter meme as some global ice age. You do know their goal was to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world to a "safe level", as in "if there was a total 100 nuclear weapons distributed across all the nations in the world, we could safely use nuclear weapons in a conflict without risking too much environmental effects".

>>63851878 (OP)
A few million. Cities are actually very hard to destroy and buildings will shield each other from the blast as will upper floors shield lower floors assuming it doesn't fully collapse. Outside of cities is too disperse that you're a nuke just on a single factory, and that might not even be enough.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two-story dense wooden cities that were burned more than blasted.

>>63853470
>1800s in terms of technology as whilst the more modern stuff would still exist, the knowhow to produce it along with the production chains would be wiped.
You're only dropping to 1980s tech if at least one state university with a chip microfab survives.

>110yo Hiroshima survivor who was badly burned over 60% of his body and had his clothing burned into his skin

>>63851878 (OP)
"The dead would be the lucky ones"
Fact.
https://youtu.be/TCx8zgtiZvw

Real question is what would a sudden drop in human life do to the noosphere? Are we talking daemonic incursion from the warp tier or the entire planet becoming anime here?

>>63853470
Agree with most, heavily depends on where. Cancer rates would increase but probably not be too crazy. The vast majority of the radiation dissipates rapidly. If you weren't exposed to too much of the initial radiation people would probably be fine as long as you don't farm too much in fallout affected areas. And even then it wouldn't be too bad as what would actually be able to be absorbed by plants won't be picked up by vegetables and grain. Wouldn't eat the mushrooms though.
If you live in a first world country then as long as you make it to the countryside you'd be fine. People don't realize just how much food a farm produces.

If you're in a decent european country the first 5 years people will be living approximately like in 3rd world countries, driving cars, migrating to countries not directly hit and rebuilding. Set a field of sugar beets, press out sugar, ferment, distill and you've got enough fuel for a decent sized community. One hectare could produce 10-20 thousand liters of ethanol, more than enough.

After maybe 10 years people would be living like they do in 2nd world countries with internet and all. 50 years later things will be pretty much back to normal with the exception that highly specialized products like computers will be proportionately more expensive.
>>63856913
Just tell your girl not to use any conditioner.

>>63857582
Also forgot to say, first 1-2 years would be absolutely shit.
Either way I'm not scared of some nuclear war. Think of all the small villages out there just surrounded by farms with food and massive storages of grains. These won't be directly hit. People won't just hear "nuclear war started btw" on the radio and drop whatever they're doing to go randomly kill each other, they'll stick together.

>>63857305
This. Also, Japanese traditional construction used a heavy slate roof so the shockwave made it crush the homes, homes that were mostly heated by small coal stoves that were still warm due to the time of the day.

>>63851878 (OP)
how long after would it be safe to leave a shelter? a few weeks or a few years? what about the nuclear winter, if that's even still a consideration?

>>63856514
>and nuclear war would concentrate on cities
This is a total misconception. The top priority targets are always enemy missile infrastructure, followed by strategic bases, and then manufacturing facilities, all of which are mostly located in heartland rural areas because they were placed with bombers and short-range missiles in mind rather than the ICBMs everybody has now. Some coastal cities are on there too but it's because they have bases or other war-critical infrastructure, and they're near the bottom of the list because hitting them means a fight to the end instead of any chance of a surrender.

Also, even if it were just coastal cities getting hit, good fucking luck surviving after they're gone, when farmers have no diesel, no seed, no fertilizer, no pesticides, etc. Even primitive farmers couldn't feed their families with just what they could farm by hand (they used draft horses or oxen to pull plows, 3rd world subsistence farmers use those little walk behind tractors, etc.) much less supply enough for the town and city dwellers, non-food farmers, and so on in their regions.

>>63851878 (OP)
It's not A nuclear war that's the problem, local exchanges are very much trivially globally survivable. It's every subsequent conflict being a knife's edge from the next bomb being dropped, the global arms race that follows once country realizes the only reliable protection from the bomb is two bombs of your own, and how easy it is for the superpowers to fall into massive retaliation as a knee-jerk reaction to a false alarm.

>>63851878 (OP)
The nukes themselves would kill millions; the economic disruption, fueled more by the resulting fear than the explosions or fallout, could potentially kill a couple *billion*. It's therefore really hard to guess, because so much of it would depend on the exact circumstances and how people across the world reacted en masse to them.

>>63856596
Mount Pinatubo is a good case study, coming so soon after the "regional nuclear winter" predictions surrounding Saddam's massive oil well fires.

Hint: the volcano "won".

>>63857582
>People don't realize just how much food a farm produces.
however almost all modern farming relies on huge supply chains and industrial amounts of nitrates (and fuel for vehicles), without which unless all farms immediately change their methods back to the 1800s soil depletion will be severe within a few years

>>63859140
Just don't farm all of it, run the machinery on ethanol. The government won't just disappear, there will be shitloads of organization after the war and fertilizer will be one of the top priorities.

>>63857487
We'd unironically see the impact of the sheer misery caused by such a huge and sudden crisis, and the following emotional influx. I bet hauntings and possession and other /x/ shit will increase, regardless if you believe this is a psychological thing or paranormal

>>63851878 (OP)
if 2500 nukes are used with 30% fail rate/shut down it will kill 10-15% of population instantly, but more than 50% will die in the next months/years duo to wars/plagues/famine/riots/cancer etc
You will be fine if you're in the middle of nowhere(and can survive alone) or in South America/Australia/NZ
Mankind will recover but it will hard duo to collapse of supply lines, radiations, diseases and famine

>>63859140
>huge supply chains and industrial amounts of nitrates (
Assuming the refineries are nuke targeted, they simply need to be rebuilt. The chemistry is well known and is commonly studied by chemistry majors. The pipe or steel plant might also be damaged but they are well known tech and refinery parts can be handmade by welders.

Enough oil rigs will be working, enough ships are sailing.

>>63861614
800 nukes are focused on military bases, governments and major ports. Port cranes are the only part of a port suseptible to damage. The rest is concrete or debris to be removed. A lot of industrial centers will have their roofs burned down, but they will have lots of recoverable machines.

See Ukraine and Israel for bomb hits to buildings. A surface detonated nuke will obliterate the immediate building, but that blast dissipates fast and one building will shield the one behind it. Airburst nukes is blast effects with an incendiary flash, damage again localized and mostly crushing a roof or setting some fires.

30% of 2500 sounds like a lot until you realize each industrial target will need several and a city will still be standing after dozens of nukes. Everywhere in between is not getting nuked.

bout a few.

>>63859140
Modern farming will not fail if the nitrate supoly chain breaks, sure it will lower outputs but it won't completely shut it down. The biggest challenge will be fuel but even then the oil will hardly stop flowing even after a nuclear war due to how profitable and needed it is. Even if the middle east got nuked to shit (which it wont, not a single arab country other than Iran and Pakistan are even valubale targets) some nation will guaranteed pick up the job to go down there and colonize the oil wells within a few days.

>>63862605
You'd be surprised how a lot of the steam powered tractors and other utility vehicles are still not only serviceable but completely functional despite a number spending nearly a century in a museum. So even in the worst case scenario mechanized agriculture is a question of when not if it comes back.

>>63861713
Best way to shut down a port is a groundburst just off the docks, dumping tons of moderately-radioactive seawater and mud on top of everything.

>>63863324
Heck, they might not be very powerful, but there are niche manufacturers making stock-powered farm equipment today, and a lot of cutting torches laying around on farms for adapting plows and such. The hard part would actually be raising and training stock to pull them; that tradition has almost entirely died out and would have to be restarted from scratch.

If Iran has a nook they should use them already

If they sit idly by or don't have one they should surrender unconditionally

If you're going down might as well take your enemy out that they will remember

>>63851957
As long as there are humans, there is an economy. Supply and demand is as old as the himan monkey, demonstrated best in hookers.

Econ doomers shitting themselves over ramdom fluctuations are as retarded as the rest of the doomer subspieces

>>63851878 (OP)
Global supply chain distributions would do more damage then the nukes themselves. It wouldn't end the world but the world would enter a kind of dark ages where technological progress and knowledge recedes. There would be wars, famine and disease for multiple generations. But civilization would spring back. Most nations that exist today would fall apart, and new nations would replace them.

>>63853470
Depends on who the launcher is. Something like US will ofc target military only to minimize damage. But looking at ziggers in ukraine today, do you honestly believe they won't deliberately target as many urban centers as possible with saturation bombing to ack as many white people as possible in europe and NA

>inb4 doctrine says
In these dictatorships the doctrine is whatever the tzar or emperor or great leader says it is today

The chimpout, pandemonium and secession that comes after will hit harder than the blasts themselves.

Both Russia and America have a few dozen warheads specifically reserved for non-aligned countries to deny each other refuge so even Latin America, Africa and South East Asia will get hit but mostly capitals so if you're living far away or in an irrelevant region you're safer than the rest.

China's nukes will go to Korea, Japan, India, eastern Russia and the West Coast of America. If they still have an excess they'll launch it towards Australia, New Zealand and major Southeast Asian capitals.

Bong and Frog nukes will be launched towards Russia, maybe France will launch a few nukes down to North Africa as a final fuck you.

India and Pakistan will nuke one another, both countries have the same number of nukes. If India has an excess they'll nuke China and Chinese held territories in the Himalayas. On the other hand if Pakistan has an excess they'll launch it towards Israel.

Israel will launch nukes towards Europe and the entire Middle East, especially Rome and Mecca. Anything to wipe out Islam and white people.

>>63856495
Hilariously, it is pretty grounded expectation. Doubt it would go to 5 biĺlion though. Most of the bodies are turdies living in the south in half agrarian societies. Most of the damage would be in the northern hemisphere, where the developed nations are

>>63863524
Vatniks will be launching everything they have, and still works. at western cities and wont waste them on some random nigs. or silos that may or may not be empty in the middle of bumfuck nowhere by the time their inaccurate soviet relics get there

>>63856913
Don't forget to give your lungs a rinse

>>63858561
>The top priority targets are always enemy missile infrastructure, followed by strategic bases, and then manufacturing facilities, all of which are mostly located in heartland rural areas
Depending on conditions and wind patterns, this would fuck the US pretty hard. The agricultural center of the country would be getting pasted by hundreds of ground-burst warheads so the entire plains region is going to suffer a lot of fallout

>>63851878 (OP)
We'll probably be fine(just stay out of big cities and suburbs lol)

>>63856596
yeah but volcanoes are insane you'd need a shit ton of nukes to be equivalent to that probably

The nuke itself would kill less than the aftermath of it... the aftermath's the real problem.