|
Post by Velkontés on Mar 19, 2009 21:10:50 GMT -5
My flat is a basement flat. Although I'm right near the centre of a very large town. So I might be shielded enough to survive the heat wave, but I'd probably be flattened by the blast.
If I was at work when I heard the siren I probably would be totally screwed.
Suppose it depends on where the devices were detonated, it would probably be dumb luck whether I survived the initial barrage or not.
|
|
|
Post by MasterSnit on Mar 20, 2009 14:58:34 GMT -5
I'm amused at the way you guys are talking about this so matter of factly, lol.
If there was a nuclear war my luck might be in. Seeing as most other countries think our whole island is simply England, and England is mostly just London and anything beyond Manchester is just mountains and sheep-shaggers, we might be ok. The Welsh wouldn't be so lucky though, but fuck them, their accents need to be extinguished.
|
|
|
Post by Champ on Mar 21, 2009 10:21:35 GMT -5
I'm right next to NYC, the heart of the world and the target of terrorism. I'm fucked
|
|
|
Post by Naitch on Mar 23, 2009 11:41:20 GMT -5
I'm fucked if NYC and LA don't work out for the terrorists and they go to like Plan F.
|
|
|
Post by Velkontés on Mar 23, 2009 12:58:18 GMT -5
I'm amused at the way you guys are talking about this so matter of factly, lol. If there was a nuclear war my luck might be in. Seeing as most other countries think our whole island is simply England, and England is mostly just London and anything beyond Manchester is just mountains and sheep-shaggers, we might be ok. The Welsh wouldn't be so lucky though, but fuck them, their accents need to be extinguished. I suppose you're too young to remember being terrified by the prospect. I can't remember (or maybe you never said) where you live, but if it's in Glasgow or Edinburgh, or near a airbase/seaport/power station/steelworks/major industrial area then you'd be fucked. Otherwise Scotland would be pretty much the only safe place to be when the Russkies strike. Maybe Cornwall as well. As for terrorism: 15 years ago the IRA planted a bomb (it was defused) in my former neighbour's house (he used to be an army general). Hilariously, I was on holiday with my family at the time, we saw our house on the news.
|
|
|
Post by Naitch on Mar 23, 2009 13:50:11 GMT -5
V thats not true. Just because Scotland has a couple airports that doesn't mean those are the priority. The other military would of course ahead of time decide which locations would do the most damage and target those. Depending on the distance between they may just nuke in the middle of two locations. But just any old airport or seaport is probably not the highest priority. Air Bases are the most likely targets as well as Capital Cities. Without Government any Country is much easier to hunt down.
|
|
|
Post by Velkontés on Mar 23, 2009 14:45:28 GMT -5
V thats not true. Just because Scotland has a couple airports that doesn't mean those are the priority. The other military would of course ahead of time decide which locations would do the most damage and target those. Depending on the distance between they may just nuke in the middle of two locations. But just any old airport or seaport is probably not the highest priority. Air Bases are the most likely targets as well as Capital Cities. Without Government any Country is much easier to hunt down. Aye, when I said "seaport" I think I meant "naval port". I know Scotland has at least one nuclear submarine base, that would presumably be a target. Obviously as Scotland is sparsely populated I'd imagine they'd come through ~relatively~ unscathed outside of those key assets. I guess it also depends on the scale of the attack, but in most scenarios a limited exchange (targetting specifically military targets such as air bases) usually escalates into full-blown death to you all. It's not as though the USSR was hurting for nukes in the 80s.
|
|
|
Post by MasterSnit on Mar 23, 2009 15:53:37 GMT -5
I'd imagine if Scotland was going to get nuked then the first and most obvious target would be the central belt. Edinburgh, Glasgow and Clyde (where the sub base is).
As for my survival, I live in Dundee. I doubt it would be a priority. It is the 4th largest city in Scotland behind Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen. Dundee is sort of in the middle of the two big cities to the south and Aberdeen to the north and is on the east coast. I don't know if it would be an advantage or not, but my city is built around a big hill and I would be well above sea level so I'd imagine the threat of flooding would be less and the air at the slighly higher altitude might be purer.
|
|
|
Post by Naitch on Mar 23, 2009 16:39:30 GMT -5
I don't know how far away those other cities are from Dundee but from what you wrote thats exactly the fucking town I would nuke. Hit that and if everything is close enough (like 500 miles with the modern nukes) you take out all that other shit with one missile thus leaving another free to nuke Reading, cuz Communists have V.
|
|
|
Post by MasterSnit on Mar 23, 2009 16:46:59 GMT -5
Oh yeah?! Well if I ever get my hands on a nuke I'm shooting it right up Colorado's ass!
You have a point though, about hitting an epicentre with other targets around it. I don't think Dundee would be the place though. If someone was going to do that, just considering Scotland, then the central belt would get it. If it was England or maybe the UK as a whole, it would probably be the midlands that got it, Birmingham and the surrounding areas. That's what I would guess, anyway. And hope, lol. It would give me time to run to the hills.
|
|
|
Post by Velkontés on Mar 24, 2009 1:57:38 GMT -5
I don't know how far away those other cities are from Dundee but from what you wrote thats exactly the fucking town I would nuke. Hit that and if everything is close enough (like 500 miles with the modern nukes) you take out all that other shit with one missile thus leaving another free to nuke Reading, cuz Communists have V. 500 miles? Nuclear weapons aren't that powerful. You can see the effects of nuking your town at this website: www.carloslabs.com/node/16I'd imagine Dundee might be safe from the Commies, assuming there aren't any strategic assets located there. But it's probably just about large enough (same with Reading - population 250,000, I'm guessing it would be a low priority but still a target) that I wouldn't want to hang around to find out, though Safe from the initial blast that is. There's always fallout, the complete breakdown of society and John Cena as WWE Champion to deal with afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by Naitch on Mar 24, 2009 3:38:49 GMT -5
I don't know how far away those other cities are from Dundee but from what you wrote thats exactly the fucking town I would nuke. Hit that and if everything is close enough (like 500 miles with the modern nukes) you take out all that other shit with one missile thus leaving another free to nuke Reading, cuz Communists have V. 500 miles? Nuclear weapons aren't that powerful. You can see the effects of nuking your town at this website: www.carloslabs.com/node/16I'd imagine Dundee might be safe from the Commies, assuming there aren't any strategic assets located there. But it's probably just about large enough (same with Reading - population 250,000, I'm guessing it would be a low priority but still a target) that I wouldn't want to hang around to find out, though Safe from the initial blast that is. There's always fallout, the complete breakdown of society and John Cena as WWE Champion to deal with afterwards. 500 miles includes radition fallout with winds and such. Nukes are fucking beasts these days.
|
|
|
Post by Champ on Mar 24, 2009 12:34:52 GMT -5
I don't even have anything to add. I'm simply just enjoying the hell out of the conversation between you 3. One thing I love about this board is not only are you guys the greatest group of wrestling fans but I can sit back and read an intelligent general conversation and not even have to take part because I'm too dumb to add anything lol.
In all seriousness, USA is simply the place at the highest risk, yet with the best security. If we kept our guard where Scotland's guard is at right now, the tristate area would have been destroyed by now. I always wondered about the Golden Gate Bridge too. Destroying that bridge would put a huge hole in transportation
|
|
|
Post by Naitch on Mar 24, 2009 14:37:01 GMT -5
I don't even have anything to add. I'm simply just enjoying the hell out of the conversation between you 3. One thing I love about this board is not only are you guys the greatest group of wrestling fans but I can sit back and read an intelligent general conversation and not even have to take part because I'm too dumb to add anything lol. In all seriousness, USA is simply the place at the highest risk, yet with the best security. If we kept our guard where Scotland's guard is at right now, the tristate area would have been destroyed by now. I always wondered about the Golden Gate Bridge too. Destroying that bridge would put a huge hole in transportation Scotland has stopped its share of terrorists. Hell Scotland might be smarter because they let the terrorists set themselves on fire first. I'm sure MS and GLF remember that incident better then I do. Champ, I don't think NYC would be the very first priority for a nuke. Virginia and DC and Colorado Springs would be the top priority. They all have a ton of shit that everyone would love to not let us have. Bridges (Golden Gate and Brooklyn) might get air to ground missile strikes from fighter aircraft. So take the tunnel out dude! Hitting New York is just something they would do to make us feel bad. It has more of a psychological effect then Salt Lake City or San Jose.
|
|
|
Post by Velkontés on Mar 24, 2009 16:03:46 GMT -5
I'd imagine New York would be a pretty high priority for a hostile superpower, once the military targets are taken care of. Nuking New York would cripple America's economy.
Because of the security it might be less hassle for terrorists to target a city like San Diego or Seattle than Washington or New York. I guess. That's what I keep telling Ahmed anyway.
The thing is we're never going to be completely safe, not from something like a carbomb anyway. The IRA did it successfully many times in the UK, or just look at Oklahoma.
It's just weird how some people (I mean in the wider world, not on this board) assess risk. You're more likely to die in your car or because of your diet and people do jackshit about it. Then they get worried over the fantastically small possiblity of dieing due to a terrorist attack.
|
|