Given everything we've seen so far -- which is probably a fairly accurate and realistic depiction of what the aftermath of a nuclear war would be like -- does it really seem possible that electricity would be available to run the television set and the videotape machine without a portable generator (assuming that such a thing would even still run after ten years)??
4:38 - Putting three rats into a Gateway bag that says "Good Food" Reminds me of the current Co-op adverts slogan "Good with food" I suppose the makers were trying to put a bit of humour into a bleak film.
@Steve10578 Like many of us I watched this film in my youth at school and it scared the hell out of us but the one bit that brought a chuckle in the classroom is that scene you mention
I couldn't listen to my infant crying and not do something to try to comfort him / her regardless of whether I had any food to give or not. Even more so if that child was my last and only surviving link with someone I loved very deeply.
@155qwerty155 I don't think ALL the water would be lethally contaminated the really severe fallout would be limited to the actual bombsites and the areas immediately downwind of them. Besides there would be plenty of survivors in places like South America, Africa and India.
@Aletheophile Only until nuclear winter sets in and pretty much all of the plant life dies off. Oh, and until the dust from firestorms causes tropospheric heating, which in turn depletes the ozone layer, letting through way more UV than anything on the planet could ordinarily handle...
Yeah... if there's ever a nuclear exchange, we're all hosed, even South America. And India? These days? If the warheads start flying, Pakistan and India will happily join in (assuming they didn't start it).
@TheIppus A nuclear war is not likely to be started by long time foes who, understand the long term consequences, i.e. the Russians, and Americans. It is far more likely to be started by those who acquire nukes recently and have no diplomacy in place for dealing with the new reality.
I'm guessing she went through a fairly normal-length labour but had to keep working in the fields right up until the birth was imminent. Don't forget -- you don't work, you don't eat.
It's a bit ridiculous to think she'd have no reaction to her mother dying at all (unless she is quite literally a sociopath).
She is a human primate after all. That doesn't go away just because it's a crappy situation.
Nuclear war is particularly destructive, but these wouldn't be the first humans to face terrible situations, including war, death, disease, and famine.
Might there be more looting, murders, and such? Yes.
But you'd still see a smile made and tear shed. It's in our genes.
@ChristophDollis I have read a lot of stories from WWII were people who are faced with a lot of misery and death soon only cares about their own well beeing.
After beeing exposed to death on a grand scale you sort of become imune to the feelings which otherwise would have seen normal in a normal time.
Remember I saw this film sometime back in the 80's. It is a chiling reminder.
@ChristophDollis Not necessarily; babies who aren't nurtured and cuddled grow up to be almost detached...not sociopaths, but unable to feel the bond between mother and child. Remember when Jane was an infant, crying at the fireside, and Ruth made no effort to comfort her. My guess is that because of the emotional trauma caused by the attacks, Ruth either could not or would not be able to bond with her child in that deep and primal way.
Very true! I also wonder if malnourishment in Jane's early years might not have also played a part. In the scene at the fireside, where the baby was screaming... I wondered if she were hungry and Ruth, who would herself have been fairly malnourished by then, might have had no milk -- probably not for the first or last time, either.
cutting the cord with teeth @ 1:13.. that's the way Neanderthals probably did.. When it came to sapience, they first used stone blades, and later iron blades.. appears that we would look much like Neanderthals if a nuke war happens..
Her daughter (played by Victoria O'Keefe who died in an automobile collision in 1990 at the age of 21, google her, she has a page) and other children born after the attack speak in one to two word phrases. Is this the result of the mental retardation caused by genetic damage by radiation and starvation alluded to near the end of the last segment?
That, and the breakdown of society. School is inadequite or non-existent, and the parents would'nt have the skill, patience, will or time to teach their children to speak.
Finally remuneration for military service in the UK looks lucrative. "Three rounds rapid fire into the chap with shopping bags and search the bodies for food!"
the BBC's excellent dead on the water n Now for first time ever uss Lierty survivors tell their story the Gathering storm avenge the Liberty also MacNamara admited is on u tube the Guld of TonKin wa a false flag opperation for the excuse to attack North vietnam N vietnamese torpedo boats Never attack the us navy they just sunk their boats n accused them of attackng them so yes the Yanks will start WW3 n i hate he thought of Britain paying for us crimes
another excellent documentary from Britain the only thing in reverse is the yanks attacking Iran in the first place am not sure if they'll wait till they'll surround Russia first with nuclear missiles or go ahead now anyway LBJ send jets to nuke Cairo while the attack on the USS Liberty was ongoing expecting isreal to sink the liberty kill all survivors as intented for him to blame egypt attack n take over the mid east
On the subject of the Queen's English: by now, there ain't no Queen no more. Or King, P.M., etc. Only the Law of the Jungle: "Survival of the Fittest."
@GammyGoose atleast if you would save a book by Shakesphear and Euclid elements of geometry, you could carry a new civilization. but with some lumber jacks shouting for food, nothing is possible
If you want to open a can without an opener, grind the top off by placing it flat-side down on concrete and making circular motions. It will wear the ridge down and eventually open the lid (yes, you'll spill some, but better than nothing).
Theres no other way to take this these people would not have lasted 4 minutes that close to the blast let alone months there is no way to take this seriously.
Maby you can just buy a Hummer & a machine gun in the nuclear war provisions isle at Walmart but here in the UK all we'll have to get by on after the war is a knife on a stick & our superior linguistic skills.
@kingsman565 LoL actually I have a cousin who works at the Walmart distribution ctr in Northern California, if they sold Hummers and Machine guns, I would have barrowed his employee card so I could get his 10% discount! :-P seriously however, last time I was in a walmart all you could buy would be some basic hunting shotguns and small caliber rifles. most of the ammo was out as well. I was looking for some 5.56x45 rounds for my rifle but they had a run on the stuff...
@Defconfx Relly they sell gun's in Walmart? O.O Interresting, Good luck anyway when the bomb's fall mate. If it ever happen's I'm stealing a boat then it's off to green land. :)
@kingsman565 Yeah at some Walmarts they do sell guns, though only sporting arms like small calber rifles and hunting shotguns. Depending on the state, is what determines if you can take it home that day however. Here in Califrornia you still have to wait the 10 days for all the paperwork to clear. In a total breakdown of order, it would be a good idea to have anything even if it was just a .22 rifle or hunting shotgun, since you can use it to hunt food and provide some basic security, >>
also one can use a basic rifle or shotgun or even pistol to get a better military grade weapon later. though in such a scenario in this movie you could probably raid damaged arms depots for arms, but you would have the best idea, which is to simply use any means possible to get away from the blast zones. Thankfully this was the ultimate worse case scenario in this movie, which is highly unlikely in 2010.
what is equally as frightning, and more likely today however, is a rogue nation becoming a nucular power and passing it to a terror group for use against a population centre....
No, the thing is that the situation would be a lot better in Russia, because of the huge landmass the population distribution has large pockets outside the radiation range of targeted areas. Even a very large nuclear weapon has kill radius no more than 10 miles, while the country spreads to 12 time-zones. Its all probability distribution, and the US worked relentlessly on a political end of the USSR, because they knew the odds, vastly in favor of the USSR in terms of population survival.
What about nuclear winter? Russia is a manly land locked country and temperatures would plummet as they would also do in the USA. Where as the UK would see temperature drops not so extreme because it is an island surrounded by the sea.
You'd think that they belligerents would have wanted to launch a follow up attack after the initial onslaught to wipe out any survivors. After all, they might as well use up all their nuclear stockpiles. No point in wasting any warheads.
In reality there would be a follow up strike from all those nuclear subs on both sides. Apparently, if couldn't reach their military or political master in a month, they have order to fire their missiles.
Don't forget the Soviet's put the small pox virus into many of those warheads. So I would say that would finish the job.
Who in the hell gave me -1? Its the truth the Russian subs and probably the US subs as well, would launch a second strike a month later, if they didn't hear from their commanders.
The Smallpox thing is not fragment of my imagination its what Soviet's did during the 1980s to ensure in there warped view, total victory if such a conflict had occured between the super powers.
@garyturner96 are you kidding me? there would be no way to communicate with the subs because the capitals would be leveled and EMP would detry comm equipment. and i doubt the presidents would even order it.
Actually, the idea in that scene is apparently - and I didn't get this even though I've seen this film a gazillion times - that he gives rats to Ruth in exchange for sex with her.
The dog was barking at Ruth when she was giving birth, ''Hey, you! Don't even think about stealing food! Get out of here or else!'' But when the baby is born, the dog stops barking, as if he realized she was in labor. ''Oh wait, she was giving birth? Oh well. I'll let her be with her baby. Birth is a miracle after all.'' Sorry about this, but that part showed me that some animals can still be compassionate, even after a nuclear war. (Just my opinion.)
A dog doesn't know about compassion, that is a uniquely human trait, its only instinct is for survival. The nose of the birth simply sacred the dog because it was high pitch sound, seeing that dogs are aquately sensetive to high frequences of sound than humans are.
What I'd like to know is what's going on in the rest of the world?
If this scenario is predicated on a US-USSR / NATO-Warsaw Pact nuclear war touched off through hostilities in the Middle East in the mid-1980s, wouldn't there be areas of the world still untouched by any direct nuclear attacks?
And wouldn't some of these areas be comprised of semi-significant countries able to continue? I.e., South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, China, India, etc?
I agree that radiation poisoning, post-attach ultraviolet dangers, environmental damage would be severe worldwide - in that sense, the whole human population would indeed be similarly affected.
That said, I have to wonder if countries that have not been directly attacked/bombed, and therefore still have intact national infrastructures - hospitals/healthcare systems, transportation/'roads, factories, universities/schools, farms, etc would be better positioned to survive and recover.
Well i'm afraid there are not many countries that would have avoided being bombed. The nuclear attacks would have been extensive and world wide, as the Soviet Union or the US had military bases in any countries of real significance. Those that would have been lucky enough to avoid direct nuclear attack would still have to deal with the problems you listed above, and many of these would be incredibly poor and underdeveloped countries anyway, with agriculture playing a huge role in daily survival.
But that brings me back to the country list I raised earlier: What about places that neither had a US / Soviet military presence, nor were incredibly poor and underdeveloped...and say, were somewhat geographically off the mainstream: Again, like Brazil, Argentina and Chile...New Zealand...and South Africa?
Well, most of these countries were and still are developing and therefore they would have been even more vulnerable to the catastrophic effects of nuclear fallout and the nuclear winter. There would be no food or aid from the grain producing regions. The environmental effects would be global, making indigenous food production near impossible.
Good points - You're probably right. One thing is for sure: Having grown up in the late 70s and 80s, I can clearly remember being TERRIFIED of an all-out nuclear war.
Reading about some of the moments when we came very close during this time period - notably, Operation Able Archer in '84 - only intensifies how convinced I am that we avoided the bleak scenarios portrayed by this film by a hair's length.
The post-911 world may not be perfect, but it beats hell out of the Cold War.
Well, what would be going on in other parts of the globe would be very similar to what this drama was portraying. Many of these countries that you said would not be directly hit by nukes, would be effected by the radioactive full out and of course the nuclear winter that would last for years. There populations would collapse and freeze and starve too death in the cold and darkness of such a winter.
Nuclear winter is overrated but there could be a "nuclear autumn." I think the countries not hit, especially in the South Hemisphere will go on in a general sense, most of them tend to be "kleptocracies" and will still be that way. Still you could have ambitious nations such as Australia, South Africa (especially in the 1980's world), Brazil, Argentina would branch out to see what is there, go out and salvage and establish colonies in North America and Europe.
Bloody stupid man. The overwhelming human masses running away from the catastrophe will destroy the rest of human race, if a nuclear attack will reach Asia. How can't you see that?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Suck it up buttercup! A massive nuclear attack needs to take place in central Asia to cut the human population down. Otherwise, we are going to run out of resources and all die anyhow. Better to sacrifice a couple billion Asians than have the human race become extinct.
That dog is kept by whoever owns the house to ward off looters. As for Jane Beckett, she addresses Ruth, her mother, by her forename alone for the emotional bond that previously existed between parent and child has been destroyed by the nuclear attack. Like Mersault, the cold, emotionless narrator of Albert Camus' novel "The Outsider" when his mother dies, Jane shows no emotion when her mother dies, either.
Good point. I felt that Jane was relatively unaffected by her mother's death as she's grown up in a post apocalyptic wasteland - death and despair are all she's ever known so this is nothing new.
Well, regardless of who got nuked, you'd have to expect the entire world would be pretty negatively affected by 3,000 megatons getting thrown around. I mean, that's half-a-ton of TNT for every man, woman and child on the planet!
Well, that was in the 80s, nowadays with a Harvey Nicks just up the road in Leeds and Buxton Opera House booming, it has to bee at least 6-7 rats and a couple of cockroaches....
So, what's going through Ruthie's mind at this point? Does she 'love' the baby? Or does some instinctual drive kick in? I might be able to carry on myself, but to care for a baby...I think that would be beyond me..unless there was something instinctual about it. Or as bleak as it is, would the baby give you something to live for apart from yourself?
You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. (No pun intended). QED
Given everything we've seen so far -- which is probably a fairly accurate and realistic depiction of what the aftermath of a nuclear war would be like -- does it really seem possible that electricity would be available to run the television set and the videotape machine without a portable generator (assuming that such a thing would even still run after ten years)??
OreadNYC 1 week ago
@BloodDaze I know, I was really expecting some freaky stuff, like in Dawn of the Dead. Meh.
aseglkj 3 months ago
3:30 bitch be retarded. what the fuck is she doing? why not boil the grain, maybe with some rat thrown in, for a nice stew?
you're not gonna make flour like that, that's for sure.
in any case, in a survival situation, the only food preparation method should be boiling. that way, no nutrients are lost.
aseglkj 3 months ago
@Jay16King Ignorance is a way of life for you, then?
BaboonLoveMonkey 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This movie is one of the most powerful films I have ever watched. This, and Schindler's List.
SilentOwlScribe 6 months ago
Agriculture in the aftermath of a nuclear war? Yes, medieval farming techniques may very well save your arse..assuming farming is at all possible.
ChuutRiit 6 months ago
4:38 - Putting three rats into a Gateway bag that says "Good Food" Reminds me of the current Co-op adverts slogan "Good with food" I suppose the makers were trying to put a bit of humour into a bleak film.
Steve10578 8 months ago
@Steve10578 Like many of us I watched this film in my youth at school and it scared the hell out of us but the one bit that brought a chuckle in the classroom is that scene you mention
bl0xta 7 months ago
I'm watching this as a nice cheerful change from Eastenders.
sludgefingers 1 year ago 6
some 2500 years ago in Samaria when there was this huge famine family's kill there babies and eat them
FsimulatorX 1 year ago
I couldn't listen to my infant crying and not do something to try to comfort him / her regardless of whether I had any food to give or not. Even more so if that child was my last and only surviving link with someone I loved very deeply.
Miniver765 1 year ago
why not just kill and eat the baby?
adropofcolor 1 year ago
@adropofcolor wouldn't last very long, would it?
DRAC250 11 months ago
survivors tips #41
eat your babies
imgordonfreeman 1 year ago 2
0:47 dogs like 'yum, dinnertime'
minigeff82 1 year ago
I think no one would survive in nuclear holocaust. Why? Because all water will be contaminated. Food doesn't matter if there is no drinkable water.
155qwerty155 1 year ago
@155qwerty155 I don't think ALL the water would be lethally contaminated the really severe fallout would be limited to the actual bombsites and the areas immediately downwind of them. Besides there would be plenty of survivors in places like South America, Africa and India.
Aletheophile 1 year ago
@Aletheophile Only until nuclear winter sets in and pretty much all of the plant life dies off. Oh, and until the dust from firestorms causes tropospheric heating, which in turn depletes the ozone layer, letting through way more UV than anything on the planet could ordinarily handle...
Yeah... if there's ever a nuclear exchange, we're all hosed, even South America. And India? These days? If the warheads start flying, Pakistan and India will happily join in (assuming they didn't start it).
TheIppus 10 months ago 3
@TheIppus A nuclear war is not likely to be started by long time foes who, understand the long term consequences, i.e. the Russians, and Americans. It is far more likely to be started by those who acquire nukes recently and have no diplomacy in place for dealing with the new reality.
pytko3 8 months ago 2
5:48 Strange to think it'd be about 1992 at that point..
WhiteLionness 1 year ago
0:44 that dog hears baby crying and is like: 'what the fuck...?' xD
livkivi 1 year ago 2
Quickest labour evar.
Although this is a truly horrifying film, I admit, but so worth watching.
alirocker08 1 year ago
@alirocker08
LOL!
I'm guessing she went through a fairly normal-length labour but had to keep working in the fields right up until the birth was imminent. Don't forget -- you don't work, you don't eat.
MrsNorris55 1 year ago
It's a bit ridiculous to think she'd have no reaction to her mother dying at all (unless she is quite literally a sociopath).
She is a human primate after all. That doesn't go away just because it's a crappy situation.
Nuclear war is particularly destructive, but these wouldn't be the first humans to face terrible situations, including war, death, disease, and famine.
Might there be more looting, murders, and such? Yes.
But you'd still see a smile made and tear shed. It's in our genes.
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
@ChristophDollis I have read a lot of stories from WWII were people who are faced with a lot of misery and death soon only cares about their own well beeing.
After beeing exposed to death on a grand scale you sort of become imune to the feelings which otherwise would have seen normal in a normal time.
Remember I saw this film sometime back in the 80's. It is a chiling reminder.
Brasidas69 1 year ago
@Brasidas69
For brief periods of times. And to individuals.
Do you think nearly everyone went 4-6 years without smiling?
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
@ChristophDollis She'd more than likely suffered brain damage from fallout while still in the womb.
Perhaps she just didn't understand Ruth's death.
VinnyMonster1 1 year ago
@ChristophDollis Not necessarily; babies who aren't nurtured and cuddled grow up to be almost detached...not sociopaths, but unable to feel the bond between mother and child. Remember when Jane was an infant, crying at the fireside, and Ruth made no effort to comfort her. My guess is that because of the emotional trauma caused by the attacks, Ruth either could not or would not be able to bond with her child in that deep and primal way.
KarenEngelhardt 1 year ago
@KarenEngelhardt
Very true! I also wonder if malnourishment in Jane's early years might not have also played a part. In the scene at the fireside, where the baby was screaming... I wondered if she were hungry and Ruth, who would herself have been fairly malnourished by then, might have had no milk -- probably not for the first or last time, either.
MrsNorris55 1 year ago
OMG Words and Pictures... I grew up on that show (born in 1982).
AtheistBrit 1 year ago
cutting the cord with teeth @ 1:13.. that's the way Neanderthals probably did.. When it came to sapience, they first used stone blades, and later iron blades.. appears that we would look much like Neanderthals if a nuke war happens..
bkthambugala 1 year ago
@bkthambugala
What ARE you talking about?
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
just thought i have no idea how to make bread, something bout grinding the wheat and baking it
adamdd09 1 year ago
Ruth looks like how I sometimes feel when getting up for work in the morning...
banedon88 1 year ago
look at the dogs face when the baby was born kinda cute
juggy444 1 year ago
Her daughter (played by Victoria O'Keefe who died in an automobile collision in 1990 at the age of 21, google her, she has a page) and other children born after the attack speak in one to two word phrases. Is this the result of the mental retardation caused by genetic damage by radiation and starvation alluded to near the end of the last segment?
JackRussellTerrier2 1 year ago
@JackRussellTerrier2
That, and the breakdown of society. School is inadequite or non-existent, and the parents would'nt have the skill, patience, will or time to teach their children to speak.
plusplusplusplusp 1 year ago
Finally remuneration for military service in the UK looks lucrative. "Three rounds rapid fire into the chap with shopping bags and search the bodies for food!"
Apolloin 1 year ago
the BBC's excellent dead on the water n Now for first time ever uss Lierty survivors tell their story the Gathering storm avenge the Liberty also MacNamara admited is on u tube the Guld of TonKin wa a false flag opperation for the excuse to attack North vietnam N vietnamese torpedo boats Never attack the us navy they just sunk their boats n accused them of attackng them so yes the Yanks will start WW3 n i hate he thought of Britain paying for us crimes
polygamous1 1 year ago
another excellent documentary from Britain the only thing in reverse is the yanks attacking Iran in the first place am not sure if they'll wait till they'll surround Russia first with nuclear missiles or go ahead now anyway LBJ send jets to nuke Cairo while the attack on the USS Liberty was ongoing expecting isreal to sink the liberty kill all survivors as intented for him to blame egypt attack n take over the mid east
polygamous1 1 year ago
And here's me, thinking I'd have to deal with Super Mutants and Deathclaws.
PoisonInc 1 year ago
@PoisonInc No, just dead bodies EVERYWHERE.
itak365 1 year ago
lol
Guynumber7 1 year ago
On the subject of the Queen's English: by now, there ain't no Queen no more. Or King, P.M., etc. Only the Law of the Jungle: "Survival of the Fittest."
rayandreina 1 year ago
In other words: the stronger and more resourceful you are, the more likely you are to survive.
rayandreina 1 year ago
07:00 Ruth has seen better days
markoj34 2 years ago 2
What's the name of this movie?
SupermassiveDrummer 2 years ago
Threads, directed by Mick Jackson.
rayandreina 1 year ago
Shit , I'd rather die when the first bomb went off.
godstomper 2 years ago 4
@godstomper So would I!
holmsatlarge 1 year ago
08:19 Where did they get the electricity to operate the TV and VCR?
PaulDougouba 2 years ago
Reply to PaulDougouba:
Probably a generator and a can of spare fuel lying around; stored in the basement, maybe.
rayandreina 1 year ago
@PaulDougouba Dynamo + rechargable batteries, for example.
punipunipunisher 1 year ago
Three rats for an HJ. Seems fair enough.
GammyGoose 2 years ago 15
@GammyGoose atleast if you would save a book by Shakesphear and Euclid elements of geometry, you could carry a new civilization. but with some lumber jacks shouting for food, nothing is possible
goodbyelonglive44 1 year ago
@GammyGoose A BJ would have been a better idea due to the protein.
CTM1978 1 year ago
threads
t76productions 2 years ago
8:35 mole rat meat
soulfader 2 years ago
They cooked that on this year's I'm Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here.
Thelistener60 2 years ago
huh, i remembered that the baby died. what a nice surprise.
jas22 2 years ago
oh, it was ruth's baby that was stillborn. nm.
jas22 2 years ago
this film is fucked up
traple06 2 years ago
Not nearly close to the real thing.
chabitz 2 years ago
If you want to open a can without an opener, grind the top off by placing it flat-side down on concrete and making circular motions. It will wear the ridge down and eventually open the lid (yes, you'll spill some, but better than nothing).
zeppelinesque 2 years ago
a knife works wonders. i had to open cans with knives a lot when i lived on my own.
Nietzschesaurus 2 years ago
Well, Napoleon said that you can "use a bayonet for anything except to sit on it."
NowhereMan1966 2 years ago 2
The BBC thanks you for allowing us to come into your living rooms scaring the shit out of you now stay tuned for coronation street.
Doppelganger399 2 years ago
@Doppelganger399
That's on ITV.
To be honest, this would be a good warm-up for East Enders which is so depressing, it makes this look like a comedy.
jazzx251 1 year ago
So did they roast and eat the baby?
USAsoldier1955 2 years ago
I am sure all those kids know damn well what a skeleton looks like considering the circumstances...
bigdaddy9247 2 years ago
Yeah there would be plenty of them about.
garyturner96 2 years ago
man this movie was kinda funny in a strange way........I would so have a hummer and a machine gun......
bigdaddy9247 2 years ago
Your very sick if you think this is in anyway funny. I suggest see a counsellor for it or cut down on the video games.
garyturner96 2 years ago
Theres no other way to take this these people would not have lasted 4 minutes that close to the blast let alone months there is no way to take this seriously.
Doppelganger399 2 years ago
Maby you can just buy a Hummer & a machine gun in the nuclear war provisions isle at Walmart but here in the UK all we'll have to get by on after the war is a knife on a stick & our superior linguistic skills.
kingsman565 2 years ago 23
@kingsman565 LoL actually I have a cousin who works at the Walmart distribution ctr in Northern California, if they sold Hummers and Machine guns, I would have barrowed his employee card so I could get his 10% discount! :-P seriously however, last time I was in a walmart all you could buy would be some basic hunting shotguns and small caliber rifles. most of the ammo was out as well. I was looking for some 5.56x45 rounds for my rifle but they had a run on the stuff...
Defconfx 1 year ago
@Defconfx Relly they sell gun's in Walmart? O.O Interresting, Good luck anyway when the bomb's fall mate. If it ever happen's I'm stealing a boat then it's off to green land. :)
kingsman565 1 year ago
@kingsman565 Yeah at some Walmarts they do sell guns, though only sporting arms like small calber rifles and hunting shotguns. Depending on the state, is what determines if you can take it home that day however. Here in Califrornia you still have to wait the 10 days for all the paperwork to clear. In a total breakdown of order, it would be a good idea to have anything even if it was just a .22 rifle or hunting shotgun, since you can use it to hunt food and provide some basic security, >>
Defconfx 1 year ago
also one can use a basic rifle or shotgun or even pistol to get a better military grade weapon later. though in such a scenario in this movie you could probably raid damaged arms depots for arms, but you would have the best idea, which is to simply use any means possible to get away from the blast zones. Thankfully this was the ultimate worse case scenario in this movie, which is highly unlikely in 2010.
Defconfx 1 year ago
what is equally as frightning, and more likely today however, is a rogue nation becoming a nucular power and passing it to a terror group for use against a population centre....
Defconfx 1 year ago
@Defconfx I'd say that was far more frightening.
kingsman565 1 year ago
@kingsman565 haha
DES3173ify 1 year ago
@kingsman565 ha ha
DES3173ify 1 year ago
Rats! Yummy! :)
amsanx 2 years ago
oh my fucking god she chewed the umbilical cord off! hahaha
Pr0ject2 2 years ago
Dude, you do what you have to do in a survival situation.
PaulUmbarger 2 years ago
still funny though lol
Pr0ject2 2 years ago
No, the thing is that the situation would be a lot better in Russia, because of the huge landmass the population distribution has large pockets outside the radiation range of targeted areas. Even a very large nuclear weapon has kill radius no more than 10 miles, while the country spreads to 12 time-zones. Its all probability distribution, and the US worked relentlessly on a political end of the USSR, because they knew the odds, vastly in favor of the USSR in terms of population survival.
NorceCodine 2 years ago
What about nuclear winter? Russia is a manly land locked country and temperatures would plummet as they would also do in the USA. Where as the UK would see temperature drops not so extreme because it is an island surrounded by the sea.
garyturner96 2 years ago
No that is the shape of the standard 44 pattern helmet. They were replaced by kevlar ones in the mid eighties, about this time.
5000433 2 years ago
You'd think that they belligerents would have wanted to launch a follow up attack after the initial onslaught to wipe out any survivors. After all, they might as well use up all their nuclear stockpiles. No point in wasting any warheads.
pix042 2 years ago
your assuming any of them would survive the counter attack to strike again
DaytonaRoadster 2 years ago
In reality there would be a follow up strike from all those nuclear subs on both sides. Apparently, if couldn't reach their military or political master in a month, they have order to fire their missiles.
Don't forget the Soviet's put the small pox virus into many of those warheads. So I would say that would finish the job.
garyturner96 2 years ago
Who in the hell gave me -1? Its the truth the Russian subs and probably the US subs as well, would launch a second strike a month later, if they didn't hear from their commanders.
The Smallpox thing is not fragment of my imagination its what Soviet's did during the 1980s to ensure in there warped view, total victory if such a conflict had occured between the super powers.
garyturner96 2 years ago
@garyturner96 are you kidding me? there would be no way to communicate with the subs because the capitals would be leveled and EMP would detry comm equipment. and i doubt the presidents would even order it.
Guynumber7 1 year ago
The soldier at 3:20 has what looks like the same helmet as those at Crécy during the 100 years war... probably an intended reference..
anisete46 2 years ago
Love the Nativity scene...
anisete46 2 years ago
I just love how she chews through the umbilical cord....tasty!!! I wonder if she ate the placenta?
Gawain1974 2 years ago
у вас там все такие ёб.тые на голову?
nakanokum 2 years ago
I was just about to say that!
markthemovieman 2 years ago
Michael Jackson proably did just that after his baby was born.
Thelistener60 2 years ago
Entrepreneur selling rats. A vibrant economy!
nofrig 2 years ago 2
Actually, the idea in that scene is apparently - and I didn't get this even though I've seen this film a gazillion times - that he gives rats to Ruth in exchange for sex with her.
markthemovieman 2 years ago
She named her daughter Mickie (as in Mickey Mouse).
DVDluvr123 2 years ago
seems like a fair enough trade...:)
ChaOsAngEL1973 2 years ago
i wonder how this would effect the sales of wham cds
TURBODORK2 2 years ago 5
Why is that? Sorry, afraid I was on another planet during the 80s...
anisete46 2 years ago 2
the nuclear fall out could have affected wham sales because of radiation on their building
TURBODORK2 2 years ago
Idiot
cibernete1974 2 years ago
Work it out. It's set in 1988.
catblanket14uk 2 years ago
1984
arnolddisco 2 years ago
You're right, my friend :(
cibernete1974 2 years ago
The dog was barking at Ruth when she was giving birth, ''Hey, you! Don't even think about stealing food! Get out of here or else!'' But when the baby is born, the dog stops barking, as if he realized she was in labor. ''Oh wait, she was giving birth? Oh well. I'll let her be with her baby. Birth is a miracle after all.'' Sorry about this, but that part showed me that some animals can still be compassionate, even after a nuclear war. (Just my opinion.)
MSparks909 2 years ago
The dog instinctively realises Ruth's not a threat after all, so gets confused.
catblanket14uk 2 years ago 2
A dog doesn't know about compassion, that is a uniquely human trait, its only instinct is for survival. The nose of the birth simply sacred the dog because it was high pitch sound, seeing that dogs are aquately sensetive to high frequences of sound than humans are.
Thelistener60 2 years ago 2
What I'd like to know is what's going on in the rest of the world?
If this scenario is predicated on a US-USSR / NATO-Warsaw Pact nuclear war touched off through hostilities in the Middle East in the mid-1980s, wouldn't there be areas of the world still untouched by any direct nuclear attacks?
And wouldn't some of these areas be comprised of semi-significant countries able to continue? I.e., South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, China, India, etc?
Maybe they'd send aid..(yeah, right)
GlobeeCat 2 years ago
No, the whole human population of the world would be affected in a similar manner.
calicheSCOT 2 years ago
I agree that radiation poisoning, post-attach ultraviolet dangers, environmental damage would be severe worldwide - in that sense, the whole human population would indeed be similarly affected.
That said, I have to wonder if countries that have not been directly attacked/bombed, and therefore still have intact national infrastructures - hospitals/healthcare systems, transportation/'roads, factories, universities/schools, farms, etc would be better positioned to survive and recover.
GlobeeCat 2 years ago
Well i'm afraid there are not many countries that would have avoided being bombed. The nuclear attacks would have been extensive and world wide, as the Soviet Union or the US had military bases in any countries of real significance. Those that would have been lucky enough to avoid direct nuclear attack would still have to deal with the problems you listed above, and many of these would be incredibly poor and underdeveloped countries anyway, with agriculture playing a huge role in daily survival.
calicheSCOT 2 years ago
But that brings me back to the country list I raised earlier: What about places that neither had a US / Soviet military presence, nor were incredibly poor and underdeveloped...and say, were somewhat geographically off the mainstream: Again, like Brazil, Argentina and Chile...New Zealand...and South Africa?
GlobeeCat 2 years ago
Well, most of these countries were and still are developing and therefore they would have been even more vulnerable to the catastrophic effects of nuclear fallout and the nuclear winter. There would be no food or aid from the grain producing regions. The environmental effects would be global, making indigenous food production near impossible.
calicheSCOT 2 years ago
Good points - You're probably right. One thing is for sure: Having grown up in the late 70s and 80s, I can clearly remember being TERRIFIED of an all-out nuclear war.
Reading about some of the moments when we came very close during this time period - notably, Operation Able Archer in '84 - only intensifies how convinced I am that we avoided the bleak scenarios portrayed by this film by a hair's length.
The post-911 world may not be perfect, but it beats hell out of the Cold War.
GlobeeCat 2 years ago
Well, what would be going on in other parts of the globe would be very similar to what this drama was portraying. Many of these countries that you said would not be directly hit by nukes, would be effected by the radioactive full out and of course the nuclear winter that would last for years. There populations would collapse and freeze and starve too death in the cold and darkness of such a winter.
Thelistener60 2 years ago 2
Nuclear winter is overrated but there could be a "nuclear autumn." I think the countries not hit, especially in the South Hemisphere will go on in a general sense, most of them tend to be "kleptocracies" and will still be that way. Still you could have ambitious nations such as Australia, South Africa (especially in the 1980's world), Brazil, Argentina would branch out to see what is there, go out and salvage and establish colonies in North America and Europe.
NowhereMan1966 2 years ago
4:31 He gave her the biggest rat. Even after nuclear war romance does not die.
GammyGoose 2 years ago
one of the bleakest films i've ever seen
when the shit hits the fan like that i'd neck some whiskey, run the fuck outside and sceam, "Come and get me motherfuckeeer"
sour8vein00 2 years ago
Bring out your dead *ding* bring out your dead
ALEXJDXBL 2 years ago
Yup that Ruth - she's a real '3 ratter' alright.
sludgefingers 2 years ago 3
Bloody stupid man. The overwhelming human masses running away from the catastrophe will destroy the rest of human race, if a nuclear attack will reach Asia. How can't you see that?
cibernete1974 2 years ago
How can't you see that you are a mental retard? Huh??
geoffck1969 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Suck it up buttercup! A massive nuclear attack needs to take place in central Asia to cut the human population down. Otherwise, we are going to run out of resources and all die anyhow. Better to sacrifice a couple billion Asians than have the human race become extinct.
geoffck1969 2 years ago
wow,people exist that are this stupid.
goddesslush 2 years ago 3
lol I think they know what a skeleton looks like by now.
wtfanman60 2 years ago 5
lol
kaanxxx 2 years ago
You could ski at night year round from all the glowing snow! lol
wtfanman60 2 years ago
isnt there survivors from hiroshima??
TURBODORK2 2 years ago 2
Yes but...I'm sure some of them would have rather not survived. I met a few of them years ago. They were still suffering.
KarenEngelhardt 2 years ago
What happened to Ruth's boyfriend?
ce1estia1 2 years ago
Jimmy died at some point during the nuclear exchange, whilst trying to get to Ruth's house.
joshuatrees 2 years ago 2
Jimmy was the lucky one.
garyturner96 2 years ago
So Ruth would be the lucky one and not Jimmy I don't think so?
garyturner96 2 years ago
Jim was vaporized when the bombs dropped, at least thats what i think they hinted at
Nietzschesaurus 2 years ago 2
I think that's him in the last episode...
anisete46 2 years ago
Am I the only one thinking of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" in these scenes?
Binky40SW 2 years ago
I have a bit more faith that they would get some vehicles up and running by then -even with spare parts an stuff.
walleyrt69 2 years ago
Try and tell me that the guy with the rats does not look exactly like Prince Charles.
GammyGoose 2 years ago
1:48... not that much worse than Christmas is when spent with my relatives.
GammyGoose 2 years ago 8
Japan seems clear of radiation these days but scientits keep saying radiation takes thousands of years to go away.
NielsShoe 2 years ago
How long would it take for all traces of radiation to leave the soil, air and water? I know it would be a long time but how long?
olivemike81 2 years ago
If I remember correctly from science class years ago. I think it's at least 100,000 years. I could be wrong
ce1estia1 2 years ago
was this a promotional tourist video for modern day Coventry?☺
cooneyfriday 2 years ago 8
she should hav eaten the imbilical cord, then the dog, lol
Huliojohnson 2 years ago
Baby jesus in the stable..
anisete46 2 years ago
I love the surprised look on the German Shepherd's face as soon as the baby starts crying.
GammyGoose 3 years ago 3
4:33 i do that for a living
ALEXJDXBL 3 years ago
It's nuclear terror. We are good at inventing the worst ways for us to die.
cthomann 3 years ago
The baby's umbilical cord. She had to bite it off because there was nothing to cut it with.
gpwerner 3 years ago
Rats for tea!.....
MrSoprano0125 3 years ago
I've never understood what's going on with Ruth and the dude with the rats. Can anyone enlighten me?
boredreiver 3 years ago 3
It looks like Ruth agrees to sell her body for a few rats.
19996669991 3 years ago 3
Yep, undoubtedly
robertspringthorpe 3 years ago 3
That dog is kept by whoever owns the house to ward off looters. As for Jane Beckett, she addresses Ruth, her mother, by her forename alone for the emotional bond that previously existed between parent and child has been destroyed by the nuclear attack. Like Mersault, the cold, emotionless narrator of Albert Camus' novel "The Outsider" when his mother dies, Jane shows no emotion when her mother dies, either.
LoverswithCassie 3 years ago 3
Good point. I felt that Jane was relatively unaffected by her mother's death as she's grown up in a post apocalyptic wasteland - death and despair are all she's ever known so this is nothing new.
weelin83 2 years ago 5
It must have been a hellacious life for Ruth.
Nicecatholicgirl 2 years ago
Thank you, weelin83. I returned the favour by giving yours a good comment rating, too.
LoverswithCassie 2 years ago
So what happens with the other countries? Did everyone get nuked?
M3anbone 3 years ago
Well, regardless of who got nuked, you'd have to expect the entire world would be pretty negatively affected by 3,000 megatons getting thrown around. I mean, that's half-a-ton of TNT for every man, woman and child on the planet!
GoldsteinsBook 3 years ago
Why did she go off to give birth alone? And that December 25 thing, very naff
anisete46 3 years ago
Wow...Ruth's body is worth 3 rats...wow...that is a depressed economy...
PeregrineC 3 years ago 3
Well, that was in the 80s, nowadays with a Harvey Nicks just up the road in Leeds and Buxton Opera House booming, it has to bee at least 6-7 rats and a couple of cockroaches....
inactualfact 3 years ago
So, what's going through Ruthie's mind at this point? Does she 'love' the baby? Or does some instinctual drive kick in? I might be able to carry on myself, but to care for a baby...I think that would be beyond me..unless there was something instinctual about it. Or as bleak as it is, would the baby give you something to live for apart from yourself?
PeregrineC 3 years ago
You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. (No pun intended). QED
moparroadrunner69 3 years ago
Hey, uh who won the war?
moparroadrunner69 3 years ago
no one probably there will never be a winner in nuclear war. Only big losers.
deathanchor214 3 years ago 6
no one wins a nuclear war. everybody loses.
sheep21 3 years ago 10
most people will die in the first impacts, the others will in the days after.
I think nobody will survive to that intense radiation, not only by burning, but by food contamination, all over the world.
only a miracle could re-initiate the life.
hda1000 3 years ago
Wow. looks like the dogs would like a taste! OO
KensaimasterWung 3 years ago
I can't believe that