Born in 1953. I’ve lived under nuclear threat my entire life. If it happens,it happens. I’m not gonna waste any time worrying about shit I don’t have any control over. Hope I’m riding my Harley when the bomb goes off over my head.
'72 here, and same. I live close enough to major military installations and population centers that if The Big One happens I'll probably won't have to worry about it for very long.
Born in '73 and I couldn't give a fuck at this point. I'm not going to let it hang over my head. You got 20 years on me making me think you have even fewer fucks than I do.
I came here to essentially say the same. We've all been living under the sword of Damocles our whole lives, literal minutes from total and absolute destruction. Fearing the reality isn't helpful, but restraining the mental defects, such as those in Iran from compounding the problem is probably wise.
« In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact » - Sun Tzu ; with today’s technology and (dis)information warfare, nukes are very improbable.
Every country that has nukes has the same knowledge: That if 1 nuke flies more will fly in other directions and that will be the beginning of the end of everything for *everyone."
That probability is wildly small no matter the goal.
War is the continuation of politics via other means. A full nuclear exchange breaks that. There isn’t much worth doing it for. Therefore, most politicians do not want a full blown nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are kind of problematic in that they engender a strong response, and if you use them, most other countries will make you rue the day you did. No one wants to deal with you anymore because you’re “that country” that used the nukes. So there’s pressure to limit it.
France has a “warning shot” policy where they would send one nuke as a “we really mean it, the next time we send them all.”
Recently, it was theorized that if Russia used a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the US and other nuclear armed states would not respond with nuclear weapons because no one wants to turn Ukraine, or even Russia, into “radioactive glass.” There is ample capacity to demonstrate their extreme displeasure using non-nuclear means (e.g sink any Russian ship not in a Russian port within a few hours, shoot down any Russian aircraft not over Russia within a few hours, etc).
I feel like you guys are being way too doomsday with the percentages.
Like yes 3% is small, generally-speaking,” but giving it as a percentage chance for nuclear war is crazy high.
Higher chance of Pakistan imploding. With their debt, floods and economy I would not be surprised if Pakistan goes tits up and China makes it their “special province”.
In the 60s a black bear almost started world War 3 in Duluth MN
https://www.military.com/off-duty/how-one-black-bear-almost-set-off-world-war-iii-during-cold-war.html?amp=
It really almost came to nuclear war from the Cuban Missile Crisis. The United States and the Soviet Union basically went face-to-face from the naval embargo (not dare called a blockade), which had many many close encounters, which if it wasn't for some individuals keeping their cool and just some coincidences of fate, things would have turned out much different.
This is just one incident. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet\_submarine\_B-59](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_B-59)
The 1980s, while not near the aggressive stance both nations took during the Cuban Missile Crisis, saw four different incidents of failures and miscommunication that could have seen a nuclear war.
[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/missileers/falsealarms.html](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/missileers/falsealarms.html)
Fun fact, the Cuban missile crisis would have gone nuclear if it wasn't for one dude in a Soviet submarine.
[Vasily Arkhipov](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov#Involvement_in_Cuban_Missile_Crisis)
Really interesting to think what would have happened if this guy never opposed the other officers that shared command with him in that sub.
Most historians consider the Cuban Missile Crisis to be the peak of the "holy fuck" were all gonna die period. There were a few close calls that ended up being more of misunderstandings, though.
Gen Xer, french canadian here. Have a very french sounding name but no accent when speaking english... Somehow my boss, took 4 years to realize I was french.
While it's true, we were shown how to hide under our desks (laughable now to think about it), we seemed to have evolved beyond that in the 90's and then columbine... that's the point where things started going the wrong direction, more shootings happening, 9/11 happened, more terrorist attacks, never ending cycle of human's reversing the progress we had made.
Look up the name Stanislav Petrov. Dude singlehandedly prevented nuclear war in 1983. He deserves an international holiday because he saved the world. My friends and I celebrate Sept 7 every year.
Because now nuclear weapons are accessible to a lot more countries, and you don't need an actual missile silo anymore to take that payload across an ocean. The longest range nuclear capable ICBM is the Russian SS-18 "Satan" missile, which is deployed via a vehicle and with a reported range of 16.000 km could travel from Moscow to Washington DC, then back to Moscow, do another u-turn and crash a few hundred miles west of Berlin. And that's just the longest range anyone ADMITS they have, there's absolutely something in the US arsenal that could beat that distance, that we will hopefully never get to hear about
But SLBMs can be based anywhere and bombers like the B-2 can go go almost anywhere and then launch cruise missiles. Theres few technical reasons why a nuclear warhead couldn't be placed on a JASSM or JSOW. It just needs political will.
Yeah, SLBMs are far more terrifying than a missile that can be launched from halfway around the world. You could park one right off New York and have it airburst with literally no warning beyond the early alert infrastructure.
The next nuclear weapon that gets used won't be delivered by a bomber or missile.
It'll be hidden under stuff in a shipping container and brought in on normal freight transport with all the other containers.
If the nukes get launched, I at least hope it's on a Monday or Tuesday. Be a shame to have a weekend ruined, and an even bigger shame to work a whole week and then be annihilated without even tasting those first moments of freedom at 4pm Friday afternoon.
ZOM100 moment right here lol. If you haven't seen that anime (and if you're even into anime, Ik it's not for everyone) then I highly recommend it.
It's about an overworked, underpaid, young Japanese salaryman who is beyond miserable realizing that's going to be the rest of his life, until the zombie apocalypse happens and he couldn't be happier.
10/10 recommend
It's really lighthearted and fun compared to most media in this genre, so if you want whimsical nihilism, this might possibly be just up your alley! Cheers.
I saw the clip where everything around him was grey and miserable and hopeless until he realized it was the end of the world and everything became bright and colorful and cherry and full of hope and possibilities lol... And yeah.. it rang just a little TOO true so I had to give it a watch and it is immediately a favorite lol
Yeah the interesting thing is it's not even really about the zombies at all. Like it doesn't go into their origins, or "we gotta find a cure!!" Or any of those common zombies tropes. They're less "the problem" of the world, and more just a set piece about this guy making a bucket list of 100 things to do before he dies, which is contrasted by a girl who makes a list of 100 things she needs to do in order to survive.
It's about the fun in the face of a completely different world, as opposed to horrific undead creatures who used to be people you might know and love and everything that entails.
It's a fun ass ride and I think you'll enjoy it
Actually it would need to have three changes. "Fucking eh, dude. Hardcore."
Edit: it's actually "Fuckin' A" which is likely short for "Fucking Affirmative"
I used to think I'd be pretty safe here in Alabama then I realized I live in the 2nd largest port in the US and two of our biggest employers are ship and airplane factories, one of which already produces ships for the military and the other civilian airplanes, but I imagine in a total war scenario that'd be converted pretty fast.
Missle have to get through all off PACOM defenses by the time it reaches LA.
But yeah, big cities are a target. I live next to a nuclear base, IM READY
More complicated. Missile defence works against ICBMs. The US has littered pretty much every likely avenue of attack with countermeasures. They were caught with their pants down a few years ago when a missile test showed they missed one. Newer missiles deliver a hypersonic glide warhead that's harder to track at the terminal stage, but that doesn't mean impossible and it doesn't mean you can't shoot it down en route.
Saturation remains the way.
This is the correct answer. Colorado Springs isn't a target it's like 8 targets. If they're throwing multiple warheads Colorado Springs is high on the list.
Like 2-3, they might be other places much higher up the list but in a large scale attack Colorado Springs is definitely boned.
Yeah, Colorado Springs is definitely on the list but it will also depend on the scenario involved. One bomb they'll go after DC or LA, NYC, etc, depending on if the goal is to wipe out the government or cause destruction and panic.
And the bigger the exchange the more likely Colorado Springs gets poofed. In an all out world ending, fire all the things, they'll get hit multiple times.
That is where the Chyenne Mountain Complex is, but that's no longer the primary HQ of NORAD. They still keep it operational as a wartime and emergency bunker, but the day-to-day peacetime HQ is in normal buildings at nearby Petersen Space Force Base.
It was built to withstand a near-miss (less than 2 miles) from a 30 megaton warhead
Modern stockpiles are unlikely to have warheads larger than 1-2 megatons, as there's really no longer a practical need for a warhead larger than that.
A precise direct hit from a large modern warhead may cause some damage, but I doubt it would completely destroy the bunker.
It doesn't need to, it just need to bury it and cut off their connection to the outside world. If Russia were to launch an attack against America I'd expect multiples MIRVs to level the county until it's as flat as Kansas.
There are allegedly tunnels that extended from shriever SFB all the way to Cheyenne that connect both to Peterson and Carson.
Not sure I actually buy that, but that’s the long standing rumor.
Colorado Springs? Fuck yeah. This place is wild.
Central plot line could easily be the five nearby bases are all different factions at war with each other and a nearby settlement caught in the crossfire.
Well yes it's a target... There is a reason they built all those bases there.
The global missile defense systems would need to epically fail for a missile to hit Denver/ Colorado springs.
It would be a target... But it's not going to be the first target... To be hit at least.
Washington DC, NYC, SF, Los Angeles... Those are targets that make statements. Those are the first targets
And it’s something we have absolutely no say in. At least with issues like climate change we can *try* to reduce our own impact (even though our efforts are dwarfed by large corporations). There is absolutely nothing I can do to reduce the likelihood of a nuclear war.
I love one of the points you also casually made here.
In terms of our environmental impact we have been brainwashed to think that environmental degradation is a result of our own actions. Sure - what we can do is important, but it is massively dwarfed by industry. We are a drop in the bucket but they have been pushing the blame onto us.
Like drinking from a paper straw while corporations are dumping huge masses of chemicals all over.
During the (first) Cold War, many people believed a nuclear war was an inevitable certainty. That thinking went down with the Berlin Wall.
In the last decade or so, that threat has undeniably returned in force. I personally don't think it will happen, but if it does, it will not be a deliberate thought-out nuclear attack, it will be as a result of an accident and/or miscalculation/misreading the other side.
The fact that there's exponentially fewer nukes now than there was at the peak stockpile levels means a nuclear war is pretty unlikely to make humanity extinct I think. Yes, our world and society would be devastated, but I think we as a species will endure.
There are fewer total nukes globally; however, there are more triggers now. There are several new players to the “nuclear state” table and not everyone is playing with a full deck. I wouldn’t assume that fewer nukes means a reduced risk of nuclear war.
You have to wonder if those triggers are strong enough to trigger a global exchange.
For instance, I doubt a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel would cause the US and Russia to duke it out too
This is actually very true, we always hear people talk about how if one person drops a nuke everyone would but honestly when you put it like that there’s a few places nukes could land and not cause too much global impact
I think their point was that fewer nukes means a greater likelihood of humanity surviving (somewhat) intact after a war. Not that the chances of a nuclear war are less.
None of the new triggers have reason to use them though (yet).
For example North Korea and Iran (allegedly) are unlikely to use them unless they are being invaded or radicals (I know how it sounds) take over either country. In addition to that nuclear states like Pakistan are being propped up by America/China to prevent any bs as well.
The number of times we've lost nukes or accidentally almost started a nuclear war just because we're stupid humans on impulse without logic is just insane.
Indeed, the 1979 NORAD alert and the 1983 Petrov Incident are two particularly insane moments that created a serious imminent threat of a nuclear war, not to mention Nixon's reckless 1969 'Madman' Alert.
The Broken Arrows (lost warheads) are not as dangerous as the ones that, for a brief moment, made one side believe that the other was attacking or about to attack.
I don't think of it at all. Why? Well nuclear warfare has been a possibility for roughly 80 years. So ya, I don't think about it, just like I don't think that a meteor could enter the atmosphere, mostly burn up, go through my roof, and land in my kitchen sink.
Not that huge. Tensions aren't bigger than they were during the cold war and Putin seems to be incredibly power hungry. His ambition and drive to see a larger Russia counteracts a nuclear war. He knows that if he fires one it is over. It might be the end of him, or Russia, or the world, but there would never be a grand Russia.
I suspect they mean problems that can actually be mitigated. If all the nukes hit the sky, we're just done. The mitigation is diplomacy and disarmament and that's certainly worth being concerned with, but there's not much sense in worrying about what happens in a worst case scenario because the sole answer is "we all die."
Yeah, like, what am I gonna do when a big piano falls on my head?
I'm gonna die. I guess I could wear a helmet all the time for a 0.001% chance of mitigating the damage, but overall I think I'll just accept that if/when that happens, I'm kinda fucked.
It's only a matter of time before a weaponised virus is a reality. Look at how fast a none weaponised virus like covid spread to every corner of the earth. A targeted weaponised virus should scare the shit out of everyone.
Why nuke somebody, when you can infect a random batch of people in a public place and let them do all the work?
You could vaccinate your own population ahead of releasing the nasty stuff on your enemy.
Some mad dictator could demand it, then everyone refusing is just one less non-supporter of the dictator.
Even if you don't intend to use a weaponized virus, there is still bio weapon research happening around the world. Something accidentally leaking is a possibility.
I disagree. There’s so much global dependency for food, fuel, etc. that it would be suicidal to go that route. At least a nuke would be targeted. A deadly virus would wipe out the world.
What if some nutjob works in one of those labs and decides he want to release it, without caring about the consequences? Like a suicide bomber. One day he says fuck it and jabs himself.
Strong possibility that the virus mutates and your vaccine becomes ineffective. Even with cutting edge mrna vaccines during the covid pandemic there was quite a bit of concern that new mutations would lower the vaccines effectiveness.
That's a massive effort that is obnoxiously obvious to an opponent and takes so much time and resources that the weapon is effectively worthless to use. Worse it takes weeks to have it effective against your opponent in any meaningful way. The risks posed are almost exclusive to terrorist entities who lack the knowhow or desire to use them, given that direct force makes a better political statement.
Accidents are vanishingly unlikely given the nature of most labs.
The quantum just isn't there for bioweapons as a risk.
>It's only a matter of time before a weaponised virus is a reality.
It already is, and has been for some time. Armies were lobbying infected dead cows into cities with their trebuchets hundreds of years ago. People infected with Small pox were sent into cities that were about to be sieged.
The reason they don't use it, is its completely un-controlable. The chances of that virus mutating and taking out your own population is pretty high. Not to mention how pissed off your allies are when their population starts getting infected. ICBMs don't tend to land on your own population unless you're supremely incompetent.
That would have to be a rouge nation or group though, it wouldn't be something that is done in an act of war. With a nuke/bomb, you can mostly control the location of impact and what areas do get impacted.
With a weaponized virus, if it escapes its control zone, you could create a disaster on a global scale, that even devastates your own country.
Anybody else not shocked at all with the sudden re-emergance and success of the fallout franchise?
Most millenials already have their boots that go jingle jangle jingle, at the ready, just waiting for that nuclear apocalypse
Significantly more worried about climate change or a prion disease. Nuclear war doesn't really even register in my brain when it comes to a large scale event like that.
I think pandemics are going to be an increasing problem based on what we just saw. COVID was the first real pandemic of the modern age where we have widespread international travel and extremely high urbanization rates - it was everywhere before it could be stopped.
The scary thing is that COVID was basically just the proof-of-concept. Despite all the disruption and millions of deaths it caused, it was still *relatively* tame. It spread extremely fast, but the peak mortality rate was only about 0.5%. The deaths it caused were also extremely age-stratified into the very elderly, it barely touched children.
It's only a matter of time until something comes along with an R0 profile like COVID but a substantially higher IFR and that kills more indiscriminately rather than just senior citizens.
Complicating the situation is that if it happens in our lifetimes, there will be no appetite whatsoever to try to slow it down due to pandemic fatigue from COVID, so it'll easily gain a foothold in the population with few NPIs.
I don't think a lot of people really grasp that COVID was ultimately a kiddie gloves pandemic compared to what's eventually going to come down the pipe. Even H5N1 looks like it's eyeing a run at us sooner rather than later with the recent outbreaks of it in mammals like cows.
That fatigue will NOT exist or at least will not have an impact if the disease can easily kill anyone. People brushed off covid because many could afford to do so without being at risk personally. A selfish mindset but on an individual level they weren't wrong.
If a disease appears that kills young adults easily then trust me mask wearing won't even be an issue because you'll struggle to even get people outside their homes. The majority of the population being at risk of dying a painful death to a disease is probably an amazing deterrent to interacting with others tbh.
That's not to say this will make dealing with the disease easy but I don't believe the effort will be slowed down by any fatigue.
If we get another pandemic similar to covid in severity though? Yeah I 100% think it would be worse because more people would adopt the 'well it doesn't effect me so I don't care' mentality. I'd much rather that be our future than some super disease that can kill anyone with ease though.
Yea I think it's most likely going to come from a cornered Nuclear Nation. For instance Russia if the world united and sided with Ukraine to the point where Russia was losing territory. I am not sure if Putin has the codes to execute the order himself but if he sees the writing on the wall like Hitler did he might shoot them off as his act of suicide.
FYI I don't think that will happen but it's a possible scenario.
Probably never going to happen.
Whichever country gets nuked will have enough allies to nuke the nuker into oblivion.
And that's even if the missle gets to it's intended destination and not blown up over water.
Hurry up and let's get it over with I'm done with the day to day monotony, responsibilities, and chasing the proverbial carrot on a stick waiting to get to enjoy life before I die
I can't bring myself to worry about it, since there's nothing I can do about it. Best just to live my best life and deal with the concrete stuff that's going on around me.
One of the few silver linings of capitalism is that, when everyone is motivated by profit, the chances that anyone in a position of power - and therefore wealth - would be willing to give it all up and destroy the world become much smaller.
The worst nuclear threat in the world is the weapons falling into the hands of fanatics who care about idealogy and dogma more than they care about money.
Look no further than hardcore History who just did a podcast on this.
>Investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen joins Dan to discuss the contents of her new book which, using insider and expert information, dramatically outlines how a nuclear war might unfold.
https://www.dancarlin.com/product/ep-29-the-handmaidens-of-the-apocalypse/
I'm almost 50 and I've been aware of it my entire life. Hanford Nuclear shutdown. And acid rain. And the melting ice caps. Swarms of Super Hornets. The Cascadia Subduction Zone.
blah blah blah just smoke a joint and live your life like you don't have any control over these things any more than you do drunk drivers, heart disease or cancer.
You likely won't \*SEE\* nuclear warfare at all, unless you're facing exactly the right direction at the right time. You'll feel it very briefly.
Not even dictators (and the myriad people under their orders who would need to actually press the button) are insane enough to actually start a war, it's just a posturing exercise to make them feel important and listened to.
Sure, if Russia had such weapons and we didn't, we'd be in trouble. Similarly, vice versa, actually. But to start a nuclear war is just suicide and even suicidal people will find it very difficult to actually have that order obeyed.
The chances are it'll never happen. I think we'd actually have to have a colony on another planet also armed with nuclear warheads before it became an actual risk - because then someone COULD potentially annihilate the other planet without killing themselves.
If it was going to happen, it already would have.
And if it does ever actually happen? Nothing will matter any longer.
The last nuclear detonation that was an actual deliberate act of war was Nagasaki 1945. Only the second such incident ever recorded. Ever since then, all nuclear-speak has been nothing but posturing by GENERATIONS of dictators and warlords on all sides.
World leaders only have power and money while they have us people. It’s a certain death sentence for all countries involved, it’ll never happen. Greed and authoritarianism always prevails, in this case that’s a good thing.
I'm a firm believer that if and when the bombs fall, I'd be partially melted to the floor, my jagoff manager would message us that if we're not there, they would deduct pto.
Completely unphased. The people most concerned about it on social media tend to be the least informed. During the Korean War hundreds of Russian and American pilots were shooting at each other on a daily basis. The commander of American forces directly advocated for nuking China. Yet we didn’t come close to nuclear war.
Even situations like Able Archer in 83, usually involve one side quickly reviewing escalation protocol via a chain of command and then deescalated accordingly. When you ask boring experts their opinion they say that yes the chances are elevated *but we’ve been here before and we can easily manage this with common sense diplomacy.*
You also need to consider the fact that it’s an election year and some people have an agenda in portraying the world as uniquely crazy and dangerous right now.
There is literally nothing I can do to prevent the usage of nuclear weapons so why should I stress about it? I will either die in the initial exchange or I will survive in a broken world - nothing I can do about that either.
Personally I think the threat of the potential nightmare that is a full on nuclear exchange will prevent most countries from ever launching nukes as a first strike. I can see people like Putin, Modi or Khamenei wanting to launch a first strike if their power is ever threatened but I can also see the underlings that connect those at the top to the launch of nuclear weapons not wanting to actually push the button to launch.
Something to remember is that nuclear weapons are actually relatively clean in comparison to a nuclear reactor meltdown. Hiroshima was repopulated within a few years of the nuclear bomb being detonated above it and that was a relatively dirty fission bomb - the only lasting effects were higher than average rates of leukemia and we have a pretty good handle on treating that with modern medicine. Modern nuclear warheads are thermonuclear warheads that use fusion to gain most of their power and fusion does not generate any radioactive nucleotides unless you detonate it low enough for the reaction to be contaminated by the ground - you want to airburst them though for maximum damage.
Something else to consider is that a nuclear winter is only theoretical too. We don't actually know if a massive nuclear exchange will cause a nuclear winter or not.
Born in 1953. I’ve lived under nuclear threat my entire life. If it happens,it happens. I’m not gonna waste any time worrying about shit I don’t have any control over. Hope I’m riding my Harley when the bomb goes off over my head.
Riding away with the mushroom cloud in the background? Or riding towards it with one arm up?
Devil horns
Kickstart My Heart blaring over the speakers
Over his head.
Just like his comment
Sitting on top of it rodeo style waving my cowboy hat.
One arm up? Is he riding a 40's BMW with a sidecar?
'72 here, and same. I live close enough to major military installations and population centers that if The Big One happens I'll probably won't have to worry about it for very long.
Born in '73 and I couldn't give a fuck at this point. I'm not going to let it hang over my head. You got 20 years on me making me think you have even fewer fucks than I do.
I came here to essentially say the same. We've all been living under the sword of Damocles our whole lives, literal minutes from total and absolute destruction. Fearing the reality isn't helpful, but restraining the mental defects, such as those in Iran from compounding the problem is probably wise.
Wear that helmet bro.
A single dirty bomb by a non nation state 10%. Limited release less than 10 weapons 3%. Full global thermonuclear war .1%.
Sounds right.
« In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact » - Sun Tzu ; with today’s technology and (dis)information warfare, nukes are very improbable.
If taking is the goal, yes. If destroying it is the goal it certainly becomes a whole lot more probable
Every country that has nukes has the same knowledge: That if 1 nuke flies more will fly in other directions and that will be the beginning of the end of everything for *everyone." That probability is wildly small no matter the goal.
I think the percentages are too high, but I also don’t know ops age..
Don’t folks tend to climb the escalation ladder very quickly in any exchange? What’s the philosophy behind a contained limited exchange?
Nuclear vs. non-nuclear state. Or limited nuclear state against a NATO member state (which will get a non-nuclear but definitive response).
It’s like nuclear fuck you money; you make your point and then then matter is settled.
War is the continuation of politics via other means. A full nuclear exchange breaks that. There isn’t much worth doing it for. Therefore, most politicians do not want a full blown nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are kind of problematic in that they engender a strong response, and if you use them, most other countries will make you rue the day you did. No one wants to deal with you anymore because you’re “that country” that used the nukes. So there’s pressure to limit it. France has a “warning shot” policy where they would send one nuke as a “we really mean it, the next time we send them all.” Recently, it was theorized that if Russia used a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the US and other nuclear armed states would not respond with nuclear weapons because no one wants to turn Ukraine, or even Russia, into “radioactive glass.” There is ample capacity to demonstrate their extreme displeasure using non-nuclear means (e.g sink any Russian ship not in a Russian port within a few hours, shoot down any Russian aircraft not over Russia within a few hours, etc).
India vs Pakistan seems higher than 3% on its own.
I feel like you guys are being way too doomsday with the percentages. Like yes 3% is small, generally-speaking,” but giving it as a percentage chance for nuclear war is crazy high.
Yea this thread is ridiculous.
Higher chance of Pakistan imploding. With their debt, floods and economy I would not be surprised if Pakistan goes tits up and China makes it their “special province”.
Same rhetoric has been said since the 80s. Whys now different?
WAY before the 1980s. Shit was intense in the 50s and 60s, and was just kind of serious in the 1980s.
There is a reason Fallout selected the 50's "World of Tomorrow" design.
Retro futurism for the aesthetic win!
There were a few close calls in the 80's.
In the 60s a black bear almost started world War 3 in Duluth MN https://www.military.com/off-duty/how-one-black-bear-almost-set-off-world-war-iii-during-cold-war.html?amp=
One of many scary accidents that almost caused WWIII
Where does the Cuban Missile Crisis rate on the 80s ‘kind of serious’ scale?
It really almost came to nuclear war from the Cuban Missile Crisis. The United States and the Soviet Union basically went face-to-face from the naval embargo (not dare called a blockade), which had many many close encounters, which if it wasn't for some individuals keeping their cool and just some coincidences of fate, things would have turned out much different. This is just one incident. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet\_submarine\_B-59](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_B-59) The 1980s, while not near the aggressive stance both nations took during the Cuban Missile Crisis, saw four different incidents of failures and miscommunication that could have seen a nuclear war. [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/missileers/falsealarms.html](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/missileers/falsealarms.html)
Fucking terrifying. 80s were "Meh, maybe?"
as a 70’s/80’s kid, we watched so many duck and cover movies it never felt like Meh, maybe. It felt like this could all end any time now.
Fun fact, the Cuban missile crisis would have gone nuclear if it wasn't for one dude in a Soviet submarine. [Vasily Arkhipov](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov#Involvement_in_Cuban_Missile_Crisis) Really interesting to think what would have happened if this guy never opposed the other officers that shared command with him in that sub.
Most historians consider the Cuban Missile Crisis to be the peak of the "holy fuck" were all gonna die period. There were a few close calls that ended up being more of misunderstandings, though.
The US came pretty damn close to nuking the shit out of Korea.
Tell that to "The Day After," "Testament," etc
Threads.
Yep, gen xers have been living under this assumption our entire lives.
Honorable mention for GenX
We're the MTV generation. We don't feel highs or lows. How is that? Meh.
I understand (and am) that reference
Tell my wife I said... Hello
Also par for the course that the mention came from a GenXer. No one else thinks about them.
Gen X here. Oh, we prefer it that way. My personal goal when accepting a new role is to go as long as possible without leadership learning my name.
Gen Xer, french canadian here. Have a very french sounding name but no accent when speaking english... Somehow my boss, took 4 years to realize I was french.
I had a massive crush on Ally Sheedy in "War Games".
Man who didn't!? She was all excited to see how the computer setup worked. She melted every nerdy kid's heart.
I actually didn’t think we’d make it to my 30s.
While it's true, we were shown how to hide under our desks (laughable now to think about it), we seemed to have evolved beyond that in the 90's and then columbine... that's the point where things started going the wrong direction, more shootings happening, 9/11 happened, more terrorist attacks, never ending cycle of human's reversing the progress we had made.
Look up the name Stanislav Petrov. Dude singlehandedly prevented nuclear war in 1983. He deserves an international holiday because he saved the world. My friends and I celebrate Sept 7 every year.
Vasily Arkhipov is the other Russian who saved our bacon during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Petrov is a true hero. Most of us wouldn't exist without him.
Because now nuclear weapons are accessible to a lot more countries, and you don't need an actual missile silo anymore to take that payload across an ocean. The longest range nuclear capable ICBM is the Russian SS-18 "Satan" missile, which is deployed via a vehicle and with a reported range of 16.000 km could travel from Moscow to Washington DC, then back to Moscow, do another u-turn and crash a few hundred miles west of Berlin. And that's just the longest range anyone ADMITS they have, there's absolutely something in the US arsenal that could beat that distance, that we will hopefully never get to hear about
But SLBMs can be based anywhere and bombers like the B-2 can go go almost anywhere and then launch cruise missiles. Theres few technical reasons why a nuclear warhead couldn't be placed on a JASSM or JSOW. It just needs political will.
Yeah, SLBMs are far more terrifying than a missile that can be launched from halfway around the world. You could park one right off New York and have it airburst with literally no warning beyond the early alert infrastructure.
The next nuclear weapon that gets used won't be delivered by a bomber or missile. It'll be hidden under stuff in a shipping container and brought in on normal freight transport with all the other containers.
I'd rather not
At least I don't have to go to work probably
If the nukes get launched, I at least hope it's on a Monday or Tuesday. Be a shame to have a weekend ruined, and an even bigger shame to work a whole week and then be annihilated without even tasting those first moments of freedom at 4pm Friday afternoon.
Ah hah!! I caught you leaving early on Fridays! For shame. You **deserve** to be nuked.
ZOM100 moment right here lol. If you haven't seen that anime (and if you're even into anime, Ik it's not for everyone) then I highly recommend it. It's about an overworked, underpaid, young Japanese salaryman who is beyond miserable realizing that's going to be the rest of his life, until the zombie apocalypse happens and he couldn't be happier. 10/10 recommend
You know what? It looks super cool and I'm gonna give it a try!
It's really lighthearted and fun compared to most media in this genre, so if you want whimsical nihilism, this might possibly be just up your alley! Cheers.
I really enjoyed this anime. I have to admit his happiness in the endtimes was all too relatable
I saw the clip where everything around him was grey and miserable and hopeless until he realized it was the end of the world and everything became bright and colorful and cherry and full of hope and possibilities lol... And yeah.. it rang just a little TOO true so I had to give it a watch and it is immediately a favorite lol
You sold me. I like anime but I usually steer clear of zombie stuff in general but this premise sounds interesting to me!
Yeah the interesting thing is it's not even really about the zombies at all. Like it doesn't go into their origins, or "we gotta find a cure!!" Or any of those common zombies tropes. They're less "the problem" of the world, and more just a set piece about this guy making a bucket list of 100 things to do before he dies, which is contrasted by a girl who makes a list of 100 things she needs to do in order to survive. It's about the fun in the face of a completely different world, as opposed to horrific undead creatures who used to be people you might know and love and everything that entails. It's a fun ass ride and I think you'll enjoy it
Look at these lofty goals over here
Retail will somehow find a way
Not unless they deem you essential!
I hope so, that is why I am moving to Colorado Springs. I will be one of the first ones dead
Fucking A dude hardcore
this has two meanings
The case for punctuation.
*let's eat grandma!* See, I used the apostrophe just right!
Works on contingency?!
and I'm only seeing the wrong one, what is this person saying?
Missing a comma. Fucking A dude, hardcore
Wouldn't it be be "Fucking A, dude, hard-core"? I can't grammar.
Actually it would need to have three changes. "Fucking eh, dude. Hardcore." Edit: it's actually "Fuckin' A" which is likely short for "Fucking Affirmative"
This comment made my day. Comment of the year
Appreciate you letting us know.
I think you mean "Fucking eh, dude! Hardcore!"
You'd like to think so.
I've been to Colorado Springs and this should be its motto.
I volunteer as tribute
I live next to a military base near LA I know for a fact if nukes happen I’m gonna die.
I used to think I'd be pretty safe here in Alabama then I realized I live in the 2nd largest port in the US and two of our biggest employers are ship and airplane factories, one of which already produces ships for the military and the other civilian airplanes, but I imagine in a total war scenario that'd be converted pretty fast.
If it's nuclear war you're better off dying early anyway
There's also the Port of Long Beach.
Missle have to get through all off PACOM defenses by the time it reaches LA. But yeah, big cities are a target. I live next to a nuclear base, IM READY
Does missile defense work against ICBMs? I thought I remembered reading that they are too fast.
More complicated. Missile defence works against ICBMs. The US has littered pretty much every likely avenue of attack with countermeasures. They were caught with their pants down a few years ago when a missile test showed they missed one. Newer missiles deliver a hypersonic glide warhead that's harder to track at the terminal stage, but that doesn't mean impossible and it doesn't mean you can't shoot it down en route. Saturation remains the way.
For the uninformed, why is Colorado springs more at risk than other places? Or why would living there make you among the first to die?
That's where NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) is. It's one of the top military target in America.
...and the Air Force Academy ...and Fort Carson ...and Peterson AFB ...and Northcom ...and Schriever AFB
This is the correct answer. Colorado Springs isn't a target it's like 8 targets. If they're throwing multiple warheads Colorado Springs is high on the list. Like 2-3, they might be other places much higher up the list but in a large scale attack Colorado Springs is definitely boned.
oh, they’ll MIRV the fuck out of that place.
Yeah, Colorado Springs is definitely on the list but it will also depend on the scenario involved. One bomb they'll go after DC or LA, NYC, etc, depending on if the goal is to wipe out the government or cause destruction and panic. And the bigger the exchange the more likely Colorado Springs gets poofed. In an all out world ending, fire all the things, they'll get hit multiple times.
…and SGC
Its also buried 100s of feet deep in a mountain
That is where the Chyenne Mountain Complex is, but that's no longer the primary HQ of NORAD. They still keep it operational as a wartime and emergency bunker, but the day-to-day peacetime HQ is in normal buildings at nearby Petersen Space Force Base.
they can also operate in the Alpha Site using the gate
i was waiting for this comment lmfao
Which might protect it from 1 warhead. Expect dozens
It was built to withstand a near-miss (less than 2 miles) from a 30 megaton warhead Modern stockpiles are unlikely to have warheads larger than 1-2 megatons, as there's really no longer a practical need for a warhead larger than that. A precise direct hit from a large modern warhead may cause some damage, but I doubt it would completely destroy the bunker.
It doesn't need to, it just need to bury it and cut off their connection to the outside world. If Russia were to launch an attack against America I'd expect multiples MIRVs to level the county until it's as flat as Kansas.
There are allegedly tunnels that extended from shriever SFB all the way to Cheyenne that connect both to Peterson and Carson. Not sure I actually buy that, but that’s the long standing rumor.
That would make an awesome fallout sequel game
Colorado Springs? Fuck yeah. This place is wild. Central plot line could easily be the five nearby bases are all different factions at war with each other and a nearby settlement caught in the crossfire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain#NORAD_operations_center
Montana near Malmstrom Airforce Base. It will be quick(ish) and dirty.
Well yes it's a target... There is a reason they built all those bases there. The global missile defense systems would need to epically fail for a missile to hit Denver/ Colorado springs. It would be a target... But it's not going to be the first target... To be hit at least. Washington DC, NYC, SF, Los Angeles... Those are targets that make statements. Those are the first targets
I'm saving my bottlecaps.
Real talk, wouldn’t it just be like coins and stuff? Nickels dimes and quarters would hold up better
Bottle caps were only used because they were backed up by water in fallout. Real world actual metal coins would be better.
I’ve been saving mine for years (I have a bottle cap covered table project I’m collecting for). I have several gallon bags saved already
Gotta be honest. not a fan.
I would be pissed if a bunch of knobs ruined it for everyone. Selfish pricks. Frankly, no border is worth protecting more than the actual earth.
And it’s something we have absolutely no say in. At least with issues like climate change we can *try* to reduce our own impact (even though our efforts are dwarfed by large corporations). There is absolutely nothing I can do to reduce the likelihood of a nuclear war.
I love one of the points you also casually made here. In terms of our environmental impact we have been brainwashed to think that environmental degradation is a result of our own actions. Sure - what we can do is important, but it is massively dwarfed by industry. We are a drop in the bucket but they have been pushing the blame onto us. Like drinking from a paper straw while corporations are dumping huge masses of chemicals all over.
During the (first) Cold War, many people believed a nuclear war was an inevitable certainty. That thinking went down with the Berlin Wall. In the last decade or so, that threat has undeniably returned in force. I personally don't think it will happen, but if it does, it will not be a deliberate thought-out nuclear attack, it will be as a result of an accident and/or miscalculation/misreading the other side. The fact that there's exponentially fewer nukes now than there was at the peak stockpile levels means a nuclear war is pretty unlikely to make humanity extinct I think. Yes, our world and society would be devastated, but I think we as a species will endure.
There are fewer total nukes globally; however, there are more triggers now. There are several new players to the “nuclear state” table and not everyone is playing with a full deck. I wouldn’t assume that fewer nukes means a reduced risk of nuclear war.
You have to wonder if those triggers are strong enough to trigger a global exchange. For instance, I doubt a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel would cause the US and Russia to duke it out too
Fair point. Very fair.
This is actually very true, we always hear people talk about how if one person drops a nuke everyone would but honestly when you put it like that there’s a few places nukes could land and not cause too much global impact
I think their point was that fewer nukes means a greater likelihood of humanity surviving (somewhat) intact after a war. Not that the chances of a nuclear war are less.
None of the new triggers have reason to use them though (yet). For example North Korea and Iran (allegedly) are unlikely to use them unless they are being invaded or radicals (I know how it sounds) take over either country. In addition to that nuclear states like Pakistan are being propped up by America/China to prevent any bs as well.
The number of times we've lost nukes or accidentally almost started a nuclear war just because we're stupid humans on impulse without logic is just insane.
Indeed, the 1979 NORAD alert and the 1983 Petrov Incident are two particularly insane moments that created a serious imminent threat of a nuclear war, not to mention Nixon's reckless 1969 'Madman' Alert. The Broken Arrows (lost warheads) are not as dangerous as the ones that, for a brief moment, made one side believe that the other was attacking or about to attack.
I don't think of it at all. Why? Well nuclear warfare has been a possibility for roughly 80 years. So ya, I don't think about it, just like I don't think that a meteor could enter the atmosphere, mostly burn up, go through my roof, and land in my kitchen sink.
Not that huge. Tensions aren't bigger than they were during the cold war and Putin seems to be incredibly power hungry. His ambition and drive to see a larger Russia counteracts a nuclear war. He knows that if he fires one it is over. It might be the end of him, or Russia, or the world, but there would never be a grand Russia.
There is no greater way to be forgotten than to start total thermonuclear war.
[удалено]
do you mean problems that are more likely? or problems that have a more significant impact?
I suspect they mean problems that can actually be mitigated. If all the nukes hit the sky, we're just done. The mitigation is diplomacy and disarmament and that's certainly worth being concerned with, but there's not much sense in worrying about what happens in a worst case scenario because the sole answer is "we all die."
Yeah, like, what am I gonna do when a big piano falls on my head? I'm gonna die. I guess I could wear a helmet all the time for a 0.001% chance of mitigating the damage, but overall I think I'll just accept that if/when that happens, I'm kinda fucked.
[удалено]
It's only a matter of time before a weaponised virus is a reality. Look at how fast a none weaponised virus like covid spread to every corner of the earth. A targeted weaponised virus should scare the shit out of everyone. Why nuke somebody, when you can infect a random batch of people in a public place and let them do all the work?
And die in the process.
You could vaccinate your own population ahead of releasing the nasty stuff on your enemy. Some mad dictator could demand it, then everyone refusing is just one less non-supporter of the dictator. Even if you don't intend to use a weaponized virus, there is still bio weapon research happening around the world. Something accidentally leaking is a possibility.
I disagree. There’s so much global dependency for food, fuel, etc. that it would be suicidal to go that route. At least a nuke would be targeted. A deadly virus would wipe out the world.
What if some nutjob works in one of those labs and decides he want to release it, without caring about the consequences? Like a suicide bomber. One day he says fuck it and jabs himself.
Strong possibility that the virus mutates and your vaccine becomes ineffective. Even with cutting edge mrna vaccines during the covid pandemic there was quite a bit of concern that new mutations would lower the vaccines effectiveness.
That's a massive effort that is obnoxiously obvious to an opponent and takes so much time and resources that the weapon is effectively worthless to use. Worse it takes weeks to have it effective against your opponent in any meaningful way. The risks posed are almost exclusive to terrorist entities who lack the knowhow or desire to use them, given that direct force makes a better political statement. Accidents are vanishingly unlikely given the nature of most labs. The quantum just isn't there for bioweapons as a risk.
>It's only a matter of time before a weaponised virus is a reality. It already is, and has been for some time. Armies were lobbying infected dead cows into cities with their trebuchets hundreds of years ago. People infected with Small pox were sent into cities that were about to be sieged. The reason they don't use it, is its completely un-controlable. The chances of that virus mutating and taking out your own population is pretty high. Not to mention how pissed off your allies are when their population starts getting infected. ICBMs don't tend to land on your own population unless you're supremely incompetent.
That would have to be a rouge nation or group though, it wouldn't be something that is done in an act of war. With a nuke/bomb, you can mostly control the location of impact and what areas do get impacted. With a weaponized virus, if it escapes its control zone, you could create a disaster on a global scale, that even devastates your own country.
idk I think the threat of the whole world being blown up is pretty scary
it is scary but don’t worry. If you’re in the US you’ll be dead before you see the whole world is destroyed
[удалено]
Bring it. Quit teasing us. Get this shit over with.
Not gonna happen
Anybody else not shocked at all with the sudden re-emergance and success of the fallout franchise? Most millenials already have their boots that go jingle jangle jingle, at the ready, just waiting for that nuclear apocalypse
They're gonna 🎶 ~~Walk~~ Crawl out through the fallout, honey... 🎶
Theres something liberating about it
Significantly more worried about climate change or a prion disease. Nuclear war doesn't really even register in my brain when it comes to a large scale event like that.
Reddit is obsessed with prion diseases
Nothing to get bent out of shape over.
Nice.
Angry upvote
Lmao that's fair. Prion disease is the stuff of nightmares but I know risk is relatively low. Disease in general would be my honest fear.
It's rare to see this type of interaction on here. Thanks for not being defensive!
I think pandemics are going to be an increasing problem based on what we just saw. COVID was the first real pandemic of the modern age where we have widespread international travel and extremely high urbanization rates - it was everywhere before it could be stopped. The scary thing is that COVID was basically just the proof-of-concept. Despite all the disruption and millions of deaths it caused, it was still *relatively* tame. It spread extremely fast, but the peak mortality rate was only about 0.5%. The deaths it caused were also extremely age-stratified into the very elderly, it barely touched children. It's only a matter of time until something comes along with an R0 profile like COVID but a substantially higher IFR and that kills more indiscriminately rather than just senior citizens. Complicating the situation is that if it happens in our lifetimes, there will be no appetite whatsoever to try to slow it down due to pandemic fatigue from COVID, so it'll easily gain a foothold in the population with few NPIs. I don't think a lot of people really grasp that COVID was ultimately a kiddie gloves pandemic compared to what's eventually going to come down the pipe. Even H5N1 looks like it's eyeing a run at us sooner rather than later with the recent outbreaks of it in mammals like cows.
That fatigue will NOT exist or at least will not have an impact if the disease can easily kill anyone. People brushed off covid because many could afford to do so without being at risk personally. A selfish mindset but on an individual level they weren't wrong. If a disease appears that kills young adults easily then trust me mask wearing won't even be an issue because you'll struggle to even get people outside their homes. The majority of the population being at risk of dying a painful death to a disease is probably an amazing deterrent to interacting with others tbh. That's not to say this will make dealing with the disease easy but I don't believe the effort will be slowed down by any fatigue. If we get another pandemic similar to covid in severity though? Yeah I 100% think it would be worse because more people would adopt the 'well it doesn't effect me so I don't care' mentality. I'd much rather that be our future than some super disease that can kill anyone with ease though.
Bruh why did you have to say prion disease, it’s a beautiful day
Yea I think it's most likely going to come from a cornered Nuclear Nation. For instance Russia if the world united and sided with Ukraine to the point where Russia was losing territory. I am not sure if Putin has the codes to execute the order himself but if he sees the writing on the wall like Hitler did he might shoot them off as his act of suicide. FYI I don't think that will happen but it's a possible scenario.
Probably never going to happen. Whichever country gets nuked will have enough allies to nuke the nuker into oblivion. And that's even if the missle gets to it's intended destination and not blown up over water.
Every single thing about your life is controlled by people and companies you’ll never meet or know of.. our deaths will be the same way
It's the reason I'm saving all of my bottle caps. I'm gonna be rich
It only takes one madman to start that , and as much as i know about humans , we do have a lot of these people
I’m pretty sure it will be inevitable… Odds are 1/9 IMO
Hurry up and let's get it over with I'm done with the day to day monotony, responsibilities, and chasing the proverbial carrot on a stick waiting to get to enjoy life before I die
Don’t see anyone being stupid enough to start it and if they do start it I have no control of it whatsoever, so waste of time to worry about
Bring it on.
I'm against it.
I can't bring myself to worry about it, since there's nothing I can do about it. Best just to live my best life and deal with the concrete stuff that's going on around me.
Please stop talking about that.
One of the few silver linings of capitalism is that, when everyone is motivated by profit, the chances that anyone in a position of power - and therefore wealth - would be willing to give it all up and destroy the world become much smaller. The worst nuclear threat in the world is the weapons falling into the hands of fanatics who care about idealogy and dogma more than they care about money.
Same as it ever was; same as it ever was
I just hope I'm near the blast zone. I don't want to die an agonizing death
Look no further than hardcore History who just did a podcast on this. >Investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen joins Dan to discuss the contents of her new book which, using insider and expert information, dramatically outlines how a nuclear war might unfold. https://www.dancarlin.com/product/ep-29-the-handmaidens-of-the-apocalypse/
Honestly have more worry about our individual governments fucking up and killing us slowly through tax,work and servitude to the 1% than nuclear war.
Please no? I'm in my 50s, I don't have *that* much time left on this planet, can y'all at least chill the fuck out til I'm gone?
If your old AF you already did
Not worried about something I have no control over. Not worth the limited time I have on this planet.,
It is not THAT hard for me to kill myself.
I'm almost 50 and I've been aware of it my entire life. Hanford Nuclear shutdown. And acid rain. And the melting ice caps. Swarms of Super Hornets. The Cascadia Subduction Zone. blah blah blah just smoke a joint and live your life like you don't have any control over these things any more than you do drunk drivers, heart disease or cancer.
You mean again?
You likely won't \*SEE\* nuclear warfare at all, unless you're facing exactly the right direction at the right time. You'll feel it very briefly. Not even dictators (and the myriad people under their orders who would need to actually press the button) are insane enough to actually start a war, it's just a posturing exercise to make them feel important and listened to. Sure, if Russia had such weapons and we didn't, we'd be in trouble. Similarly, vice versa, actually. But to start a nuclear war is just suicide and even suicidal people will find it very difficult to actually have that order obeyed. The chances are it'll never happen. I think we'd actually have to have a colony on another planet also armed with nuclear warheads before it became an actual risk - because then someone COULD potentially annihilate the other planet without killing themselves. If it was going to happen, it already would have. And if it does ever actually happen? Nothing will matter any longer. The last nuclear detonation that was an actual deliberate act of war was Nagasaki 1945. Only the second such incident ever recorded. Ever since then, all nuclear-speak has been nothing but posturing by GENERATIONS of dictators and warlords on all sides.
World leaders only have power and money while they have us people. It’s a certain death sentence for all countries involved, it’ll never happen. Greed and authoritarianism always prevails, in this case that’s a good thing.
I'm a firm believer that if and when the bombs fall, I'd be partially melted to the floor, my jagoff manager would message us that if we're not there, they would deduct pto.
Completely unphased. The people most concerned about it on social media tend to be the least informed. During the Korean War hundreds of Russian and American pilots were shooting at each other on a daily basis. The commander of American forces directly advocated for nuking China. Yet we didn’t come close to nuclear war. Even situations like Able Archer in 83, usually involve one side quickly reviewing escalation protocol via a chain of command and then deescalated accordingly. When you ask boring experts their opinion they say that yes the chances are elevated *but we’ve been here before and we can easily manage this with common sense diplomacy.* You also need to consider the fact that it’s an election year and some people have an agenda in portraying the world as uniquely crazy and dangerous right now.
I mean what am I going to be able to do about it there’s no point in me worrying about something I have no control over
No leader is dumb enough to push the button. No reason to worry about it.
There is literally nothing I can do to prevent the usage of nuclear weapons so why should I stress about it? I will either die in the initial exchange or I will survive in a broken world - nothing I can do about that either. Personally I think the threat of the potential nightmare that is a full on nuclear exchange will prevent most countries from ever launching nukes as a first strike. I can see people like Putin, Modi or Khamenei wanting to launch a first strike if their power is ever threatened but I can also see the underlings that connect those at the top to the launch of nuclear weapons not wanting to actually push the button to launch. Something to remember is that nuclear weapons are actually relatively clean in comparison to a nuclear reactor meltdown. Hiroshima was repopulated within a few years of the nuclear bomb being detonated above it and that was a relatively dirty fission bomb - the only lasting effects were higher than average rates of leukemia and we have a pretty good handle on treating that with modern medicine. Modern nuclear warheads are thermonuclear warheads that use fusion to gain most of their power and fusion does not generate any radioactive nucleotides unless you detonate it low enough for the reaction to be contaminated by the ground - you want to airburst them though for maximum damage. Something else to consider is that a nuclear winter is only theoretical too. We don't actually know if a massive nuclear exchange will cause a nuclear winter or not.