"debatable", "dumbass".

yes it is not proven

it is just a theory

and people overestimate the power of neuclear weapons

If anything we know for sure now, with all the climate change debacle, is that scientists know very little about how the climate works.

how so?

and again laughing at people for being prepared with legitament ways to prepare is retarded

Myth: Fallout radiation penetrates everything; there is no escaping its deadly effects.

° Facts: Some gamma radiation from fallout will penetrate the shielding materials of even an excellent shelter and reach its occupants. However, the radiation dose that the occupants of an excellent shelter would receive while inside this shelter can be reduced to a dose smaller than the average American receives during his lifetime from X rays and other radiation exposures normal in America today. The design features of such a shelter include the use of a sufficient thickness of earth or other heavy shielding material. Gamma rays are like X rays, but more penetrating. Figure 1.3 shows how rapidly gamma rays are reduced in number (but not in their ability to penetrate) by layers of packed earth. Each of the layers shown is one halving-thickness of packed earth- about 3.6 inches (9 centimeters).3 A halving- thickness is the thickness of a material which reduces by half the dose of radiation that passes through it.

The actual paths of gamma rays passing through shielding materials are much more complicated, due to scattering, etc., than are the straight-line paths shown in Fig. 1.3. But when averaged out, the effectiveness of a halving-thickness of any material is approximately as shown. The denser a substance, the better it serves for shielding material. Thus, a halving-thickness of concrete is only about 2.4 inches (6.1 cm).

Oh yeah, jokes are retarded.

"if a nuclear winter is started, it won't matter what kind of house you chose to hide inside
what pills you pop"

it litterally does matter

short term, yes, long term, not at all, which was what I was alluding to.

long term it also matters

which is why you take the pills

If the dose rate 1 hour after an explosion is 1000 R/hr, it would take about 2 weeks for the dose rate to be reduced to 1 R/hr solely as a result of radioactive decay. Weathering effects will reduce the dose rate further,' for example, rain can wash fallout particles from plants and houses to lower positions on or closer to the ground. Surrounding objects would reduce the radiation dose from these low-lying particles.

Within two weeks after an attack the occupants of most shelters could safely stop using them, or could work outside the shelters for an increasing number of hours each day. Exceptions would be in areas of extremely heavy fallout such as might occur downwind from important targets attacked with many weapons, especially missile sites and very large cities. To know when to come out safely, occupants either would need a reliable fallout meter to measure the changing radiation dangers, or must receive information based on measurements made nearby with a reliable instrument.

the point I'm trying to make is that if human life is rendered unsustainable, you'll only be prolonging the inevitable. If we go by the assumption that nuclear winter is impossible, then I am happy to agree with you that it does indeed matter.

ok that is fine, the problem i have is that the effects of the weapons have been exagerated and people believe that things are hopeless when there are small steps you can take to protect yourself

I am perfectly happy to assume the medicine does what science has established it does, so you don't have to quote the study on this for my sake. I would probably stock up on it myself, if things turn more dire in the near future.

in global poltics that is

I think that is a perfectly valid way to look at the situation @Deleted User

fair enough

but if you see a mushroom cloud and it is smaller than your thumb...

I honestly have no idea what the strength of currently employed nuclear weapons are, or if they could indeed cause a nuclear winter, or even how many of them would be launched. I just thought the absurdity of the imagery of popping a pill against a shockwave was funny

totally agree that if you're just exposed to radiation, it would be wiser to use than not

<:think_globalist:378717098945544192>

Scott Manley made (and is still ongoing I think) a series on The Science of Nuclear Bombs.

One of the things he points out is, how hard it is to make larger bombs. Basically, if the nuclear fuel gets vaporized and blasted away before it can detonate, it's all wasted.

So smaller nuclear bombs are more efficient.

One of the tricks is to wrap the fissile material into some very heavy metal. By sheer inertia, it keeps the nuclear material confined for "longer" so more of it can undergo fission.

when the last megaton bombs are dismantled, nuclear winter will probably be impossible

don't know what the sizes of the ones in Pakistan and North Korea are, but I don't think it's megaton+ since they've spent a relatively long time developing something as simple as what they have

unorganic chemistry professor I had at university called the NK scientists retarded, because of how long it took them to figure out how to make a basic nuke, lol

I think it was mostly the enrichment of uranium they had trouble with

He's probably a retard.

I still don't think NK developed shit, it was all supplied by Russia.

And it's not just the enrichment, making it go boom is also hard.

See the already mentioned series by Scott Manley.

He goes through all the known details about the early nuclear devices, then how they evolved.

There's even some bullshit on how to create a specific shape with explosive charges, using explosives of different detonation speeds, so all the shockwaves hit the nuclear material at the same time with a spherical shape.