Would you even want to survive a nuclear fallout?

[Whose]

Seeing loads of threads about bunkers and prepping etc etc

I have a friend who talks about this a lot and is deeply unimpressed with my stance of "honestly, I wouldn't want to survive the apocalypse anyway".

I like good cheese, and chocolate, I like wasting time on the Internet and going on holiday. I like hot showers.
The apocalypse sounds like it sucks. I haven't the first clue how to season a rat roasted on a stick, and cockroaches scare me. Camping is shit.

AIBU to think that in the case of a nuclear fallout, just instantly being wiped out sounds like the far nicer option?

I'm in two minds - part of me would be really curious to see what life was like and maybe experience an entire new world but then the other part is well aware the reality would likely be terrifying and completely hellish, so being wiped out would probably be a blessing in disguise.

We live in rural Wales and dh tried to reassure me about this whole situation the other day by saying if it turns nuclear we are nowhere near any blasts even if he blasted every major city in the UK. He didn't understand why I wasn't reassured by that but horrified!

No way. Like several PPs I grew up in the height of the Cold War surrounded by information about this kind of thing, and the potential horrors are all too clear in my mind.

I would invite everyone here to read that most quintessentially British response to atomic fall out, Muriel Howorth's Atomic Gardening Society and her remarkable book:

“I now felt that by some stroke of luck which is difficult to ascribe to chance, I had been given the opportunity—so much longed for—to bring science right into the homes of the people. I organized an ATOMIC GARDENING SOCIETY to co-ordinate and safeguard the interests of ATOMIC MUTATION EXPERIMENTERS who would work as one body to help scientists produce more food more quickly for more people, and progress horticultural mutation.” [ Atomic Gardening for the Layman, 1960 ]

www.atomicgardening.com/1960/02/21/the-atomic-gardening-society/

In the event of such catastrophes, there are distinct gradients of effect and it feels unwise to consider only the most dramatic and drastic scenarios.

Honestly, if it weren't for my children, the world as it currently is wouldn't be for me. So no, lol.

Depends on the scale doesn’t it
If I’m outside the immediate fall out zone and other countries aren’t effected hopefully get evacuated out somewhere and start a new life

But If I’m going to grow 18 nipples and all my skin fall off then no thanks

@Scbchl

Plenty of people survived absolutely fine in Japan after the nuclear bomb in Hiroshima. Id rather be outwith the fall out zone and I'm sure we'd be fine. It depends on the number of nuclear bombs fired doesn't it.

Nuclear bombs have, unsurprisingly, come on quite a lot in the 76 years since Hiroshima

I wouldn’t want to survive the initial strike and die a slow painful death. It would be much better to be wiped out instantly.

How much notice would we get if a nuke was heading our way?

I feel the same way about zombie apocalypses. I don’t want to spend the rest of my days cowering in my cellar wondering if the zombies or the fully armed preppers are going to get me first. I will be out on the street shouting “Bite me quick” like a desperate pensioner on Blackpool pleasure beach.

After seeing The Road, no way would I want to live.
If we did survive the initial attack I'd take the kids out first then do myself in. I'd hate to think they'd have to try and survive on their own.

Nuclear bombs have, unsurprisingly, come on quite a lot in the 76 years since Hiroshima

Yes, they're much more targeted now if the information about them is credible. It's in nobody's interest to create a smouldering wreck for their children to inherit.

We've been very near the brink on several occasions and it's been the actions of people with the same connections and humanity that we have that have prevailed. One of the best known examples is Stanislav Petrov.

On 26 September 1983, three weeks after the Soviet military had shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Petrov was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile had been launched from the United States, followed by up to five more. Petrov judged the reports to be a false alarm,[2] and his decision to disobey orders, against Soviet military protocol,[3] is credited with having prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its NATO allies that could have resulted in a large-scale nuclear war which could have wiped out half of the population of the countries involved. An investigation later confirmed that the Soviet satellite warning system had indeed malfunctioned. Because of his decision not to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike amid this incident, Petrov is often credited as having "saved the world"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

There are others.

@AintNobodyHereButUsChickens

How much notice would we get if a nuke was heading our way?

i wouldn't want any, whats the point? no one will survive in the northern hemisphere and likely as not, anywhere on earth.

Automated launch systems would take over & everything would be launched.

Probably the only planet, out of billions, that supports complex life and we destroy it.

I grew up in the late seventies/eighties and we were shown Where The Wind Blows at school. It terrified me. I remember my gran saying that if anyone was stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon they'd be sealing their own fate to, and they're too arrogant to wish death upon themselves. Which made me feel better. Then she said anyway if they do drop one there's absolutely nothing you can do about it, so no point in worrying and better to be gone in an instant than live in a nuclear winter. Which didn't make me feel better, but it did make sense. So that's my stance now.

Indeed, and there are many, many variables - size, detination choice (air or ground), terrain etc. Their effects, broadly speaking, are similar but it's the range of effects that will differ. There's also the prospect of smaller, more tactical missiles. The point is I think that complete obliteration is not the only possible outcome.

Morbid question. I'm a bit useless with various aches and pains and lack of energy, due to thyroid. Prone to anxiety and raging peri-meno.. I doubt I'd be cut out for survival of the fittest in the event of a nuclear incident. Horrible thought.

Sorry that was in reply to @EthelTheAardvark

IMO the only nukes we'll possibly see are the smaller tactical type. I don't think anybody wants MAD this time.

@Whatafustercluck

Indeed, and there are many, many variables - size, detination choice (air or ground), terrain etc. Their effects, broadly speaking, are similar but it's the range of effects that will differ. There's also the prospect of smaller, more tactical missiles. The point is I think that complete obliteration is not the only possible outcome.

Yes, there would feasibly be considerable nuance, depending on the yield and where it is.

It's understandable that TV and film concentrate on the most dramatic outcomes but it doesn't mean that those are the most likely.

YANBU. Things like the Walking Dead scare me and I hate camping. Why would you bother, just to live in fear and deprivation your whole life? No thanks.

@MorningStarling you and I are totally aligned. This is exactly how I feel and the view I've been expressing.

@AffIt

I live about 40 miles away from Faslane, which would undoubtedly be a target.

Survival isn't something I would even have time to think about it in the event of a nuclear strike.

I'm 7 miles away. I would be absolutely fecked

Yes. I think I’d make an amazing post-apocalyptic cult leader and I like the idea of glowing in the dark.

Also it's not just Putin sat there with his hand poised over a big red button, is it. I think a lot of people get that image in their head and run with it as fact.