The war would certainly destroy the global petroleum distribution network. With that gone, modern agrictulture comes to an end and so do large human populations. The more advanced a nation the less likely they could even offer a token recovery. It would be the poor countries with would suffer the least in my opinion.
@ClearSmashDrop I agree with you. The ones least dependent upon factory farming and global economics would feel the least; the meek indeed would inherit the Earth.
@Lyra74 Actually a scene showing her character dying was shot but excised from the film due to time constraints. Besides, haven't you ever seen Poltergeist? She looked like hell by the end of that film.
this is a movie based on a fictional war between the u.s. and the former soviet union. there needs to a movie now based on what would happen to the world economy and the world as a whole if there was an all out war between israel and iran or indian and china or any of the lesser buy never the less powerfull nuclar powers in the world today. the day after 2012 redux??
First world blasted right to the thrid world. Famine is a part of humanity. There were always famines. It killed millions in British India in the 19th century, USSR,China, Africa during the cold war, in North Korea after the cold war. During a crysis like this were food is scarce and its given a lil by ratio, you can imagine that you'll starve but still live or just starve to death, you can imagine that people will die and that might be you. It happened and its happening right now
@WCWite Took me years to figure out why that guy shot him. When I realized he was killed for food, that just make this disturbing film even more so. It make sense in a gruesome way, food would likely become so scarce that the only things people would have left to eat are each other.
Its sad, disgusting and disturbing to say... If a nuclear war were to ever happen (Even a super small one of say, 30 nukes) it would be a lot worse than anything depicted like this. If it was a all-out full scale war, it would be like the 2009 movie THE ROAD. Its painful and emotionally disturbing to watch movies like this.
Thanks so much for uploading this and providing such great annotations--they were really helpful. Also thanks for staying onboard well after you loaded the film.
I watched the second scene being filmed. The portion after bodies are placed with the camp and people milling about. My buddy was an extra. They told the extras to wear old ripped up clothes, then they put bandages on them and sprayed them with gray make up to make them look dirty. This was a pretty devastating film when it aired.
@irishchrisc This one was written and filmed before the concept of nuclear winter was widely accepted and understood. The first film to accurately portray the phenomenon was Threads, which aired in 1984.
@MercuryRis Sorry, I'm confused dude. You just responded to like a 6 month old post of mine, I don't remember it and can't find it in the comments can you help me out.
@eragon2121 or are you just trolling me. What I cant make a point without elaborating with you Mr Eragon2121? I offered my opinion, and I asked a question. What else would you like me to add to your dangling conjunction?
@kunstsein This movie was filmed in 1982, before the concept of nuclear winter was fully understood; it had been hypothesized as early as the 1970s, but not researched to the point to where it was well known. The term "nuclear winter" itself wasn't even coined until 1983.
Please read James Howard Kunstler's "The Long Emergency". While not dealing with a post apocalyptic or post-nuclear world, it DOES address, very wel, what life might be like, and how we might live it (and WHERE) following the inevitable depletion of and subsequence disappearance of **OIL**. There Will Be Blood? You don't know the half of it.
Topsoil is dying rigth now because of the pesticides and fertilizers right now we dont need a nuclear war to be in trouble. We are gonna be in trouble when we run out of oil.
To be honest, I would rather still be in the military rather than any other institution. Although Air, Naval, and missile bases would be hit, the fact that you would be in a still orderly institution with imposed rules and regulations plus food, chemical and nuclear protection, would mean that you would probably last longer than anyone. If you could come to terms with your family or loved ones disapearing off the face of the earth that is.
@moleman9000 Just a historical point, if this is the early/mid eighties, then why do the U.S army look as if they are from the Vietnam conflict. The M31 helmet was phased out in the early eighties to be replaced by those kevlar ones used in the Gulf War and Panama. Furthermore, the U.S army/aiforce soldiers would have donned NBC suits when the nukes started to go off. They wouldn't be walking around looking like they were on manouveres. Lastly the silo guards wouldn've had a shelter too.
you shouldnt bury radiated bodies, but burn them....otherwise whentneh bodies decompose they can release the radiation back intot he soil, and if near water, pollute it again
You know how some people refuse to believe we are animals? This demonstrates how civilized we are. We create these tools, and weapons. We use them. I hope this will not ever happen in my life time or anyone elses for that matter. This is a hell on earth experience.
No one is safe. Even a limited conflict between pakistan and india that would involve perhaps a hundred warheads would cause a nuclear winter that would life as we know it. The temperature would plummet, killing the rainforests. The crops would fail, Nuclear war in any capacity, would end human life.
Well right now Russia, Iran, United States, North Korea, and Britain would be the fronts for nuclear war. If you live in Australia or South Africa you are probably safe from most conflicts.
Unfortunately, no country will be safe from the aftermath. The "global economy" that we have nurtured so well is a house of cards ready to tumble; the world is bound together monetarily in more ways than anyone could have imagined even 50 years ago. If just the US, UK, and Russian Federation go down, the rest of the world would follow like the proverbial dominoes. Outlying nations would be able to recover, yes, but the idea that anyone would emerge unscathed is wishful thinking.
@lothartheterrible Just the collapse of our dollar, which is the world's reserve currency, would send global markets into a tailspin.
Some nations might emerge as powers but in a global nuclear war, so much industry and resources would be lost that it might mark the permanent end of the global superpower. Regional powers would more then likely evolve and the world would become multipolar as opposed to uni or bipolar.
As long as their soils are not contaminated and as longs as their governments and social institutions are up and running. They should be okay. I think. Remember, at the end of WWII. The soviet Union and all of Eastern and Central Europe, China were in complete rubble, but they rebuilt everything in a decade. People would just have to provide for themselves. The worst is that the nuclear war can happen even without our involvement. India and Pakistan u see. Most likely place for a nuclear war
@lothartheterrible I agree with you; most of the nations are so interdependent now that most of the nations would suffer if bombs were to be launched, even if only indirectly.
@lothartheterrible If there *is* any sort of economic system following a nuclear holocaust, it would probably be based on the barter system, people trading their valuables for food or other essential supplies. But who knows how long that could last, as scarce supplies become even more so, and mass starvation sets in. And since it's unlikely that new food could be grown/produced in such a hostile environment, some people might be so desperate to survive, they might even resort to cannibalism.
@Akira625 In the extreme, you are probably right. Before conditions degenerate into such, however, your theory about the barter system coming back is probably highly likely to be the immediate reality.
@RandomWad I hate the conception that Australia would be safe from a nuclear war. Nuclear war is an all or nothing game. You don't have to have the weapons or industrial base to be hit, just being allied to your enemy would put you in danger. Australia would be hit just as any other country in the world would be. No one would be "safe". There IS no "safe".
Nuclear weapons are interesting. They can prevent mass death, yet they can create it. Quite ironic, if you ask me.
i wouldn't actually call looking for food when you are starving as looting...looting is breaking into stores and stealing electronics and other similar stuff..
i live in louisiana and was here after katrina. whew. a total hell on earth. not necessarily from the water but from the people going berserk...totally berserk. there were crazed gang members shooting at coast guard helicoptors bringing in medicine and supplies. shooting at doctors and nurses trying to evacuate the hospitals.
what a change to watch a movie far removed from these people and in a far worse scenario who actually pull together and help eachother rather than looting and rioting.
I've never been able to understand the firing squad at 8:40. What would be the point of trying to "restore order" after such a horrible exchange? There's nothing left to preserve.
Mankind has recovered from worse events than those predicted here. Look at the Toba super eruption about 70,000 years ago. They say it killed all but 10,000 of the people alive on earth at the time. Compared to that the worst nuclear war scenario would leave billions of people in the third world to inherit the earth.
The USA and Russia would be in the stone age for 50 years though.
You miss one important element that was not present in the Toba event: radiation. The amount of radiation released upon the US and Russia alone would make them wastelands for much longer than 50 years. Mankind may indeed survive, but society would break down, and civilization as we know it would cease to exist.
No the radiation from the bombs alone wouldn't do all that. Certain areas's where nuclear plants were located, if those plants were hit woul be hot for more like a century.
Second a volcanic supereruption is no joke. It involved more total explosive power than all of the worlds Abombs.
Nuclear war is bad. It cannot be allowed to happen. All I have ever said, is if it does happen, the survivors can't just give up. So we live in a world without a I phone, or electricity for a while.
I realize that; I minored in Geology. Radioactive fallout rides on the wind; for proof of this, look at Chernobyl; that was a relatively minor event and geiger counters lit up as far away as Scandinavia. A full-scale nuclear attack involving 1000 warheads would be exponentially worse.
Keep in mind, I am not disagreeing with you about volcanoes; when Yellowstone erupts again, the result will be globally catastrophic.
i don't think so, but i'm pretty sure you'd be blinded if you watched the initial fireball after detonation. similar to watching an eclipse of the sun.
@gatorfan, essentially radiation poising cooks your organs. hair loss, skin lacerations, vomiting, dihorea and it is no surprise even blindness or hysterical blindless
nuclear radiation is just very high energy (like a microwave oven) and when these high energy particles hit solid objects it slows them down somewhat..and the loss of kinetic energy is given off as heat energy..in physics it is know as the second law of thermal dynamics or the conservation of energy..energy is neither gained nor lost..so the loss of kinetic energy (velocity) is given of as thermal (heat)
Well,the first thing to do to"prepare" an"aftermath" issavingasmany technical books as posible, inorder rto preserve the ability tobuildmachines and to do"specialistic activities". Then allthe people should concentrate onagricolture,inorder to have soon beans andother impotant nutrientbvegetables. ButI don't understand why Airman McCoy has died of radiation: he was in a shelter when the "little bomb" exploded,and was exposed tovery little fall-out
He was exposed to a lot of fallout. When he got out of the shelter that snowy stuff was heavy soot from the explosions; that's the most powerful fallout. The blanket may have protected him from beta burns but he was breathing in alpha and beta emitters with each breath, hence the internal bleeding and acute radiation sickness.
As for this movie, it's actually strange that during the cold war the government were very concerned about stratgies and scenarios for a nuclear war but never made preperations for the people whou would survive, yeah they built a lot of bunkers.
But way to few for the american people and also they didn't think about way's to cure radiation and matters alike.
That's not true, we can release radiation. And if we can figure the out the exact proces of radiation coming into existence, then there will probably (however most likely very complicated) way to reverse that proces.
I imagine some coutner measure muct the same way as i.e. anti-sound. Anti-sound is the production of soundwaves who are identical to soundwaves created by i.e. cars, when they collide the sound is reduced to almost zero. Matter and anti-matter work the same way.
Radiation causes 'sickness' through ionization, which disrupts cell tissues and DNA. This makes it more akin to a chemical poison than a disease. Without some sort of strong nanotechnology that can fix organic chemistry on at least the molecular level, that sort of damage cannot be repaired artificially. Antisound only works because sound is the transmission of energy through a medium and wave interference can be used to 'cancel out' waves--it's nothing like matter/antimatter!
yeah your mostly right, the example of antisound and antimatter wasn't very good. I just wanted to tackle your argument that radioation sickness can't be cured without chaning the laws of physics.
@ajpackman9 Don't forget 3 Dog! AAAAHHOOOOO! We bring you the news wasteland, no matter how bad it hurt! And now the music...... *40's made up song Chime in.
*turn off Pipboy3000 Radio
Vault Dweller 101 is coming to killed some physco for some karma. XD
The scene in the burnt out schoolhouse where the "experts" tell Dahlberg and the other farmers how to prepare for the next harvest is one of my favorite scenes in the whole film . It's almost funny: "Task force... where the hell does he think they're coming from?" John Cullum plays it perfectly as his rising temper points out the ridiculousness of the whole situation. "Where did you get all this information John... all this good advice? Out of some government pamphlet!"
Folks who find this movie interesting and/or entertaining will probably enjoy watching the 'Jericho' series, a made-for-TV docudrama, a new-millenium version of The Day After. The script is more expansive & contextually relevant & the acting is more artful & engaging than TDA; The full sequnce of some 24 or so episodes are (as of a coupla months) available on youtube. It seems odd calling these post-apocalypse-type movies 'entertaining' --more like darkly engrossing or tragically captivating.
I just hope Britain would keep out of the nucking part of a war - apparently it would only take 25% of the soviets stockpile to completely decimate us
It wouldn't matter if the UK did or not. The UK holds many American and NATO military interests, those on there own would be enough to get us wiped out in any strike and that's with out including our own nuclear capabilities.
Even if we somehow managed to avoid any nuclear engagement in an all out war such as this the fall out from the rest of Europe, the former Eastern block, Americas, Northern Africa and the subsequent nuclear winter would leave us dead.
Well that is the beggining of the trouble. Now America still do hold bases in our country , but not to the extent they used to throught the latter half of the 20th century As far as I am aware they have withdrawn their bombers and ICBM's and only operate about 2 bases , which are part of the early warning system these are actually being handed over to RAF staff So we can live in hope that our country would not be the victim of a direct outright nuclear strike (please correct me if I am wrong)
Yes, one my favorite actors, John Cullum, lucky to have met him Jan. 10 in NYC, he was so nice! When 9/11 happened, I immediately thought of this film. Livng in NJ, it was chilling
@Ultima770 Remind me how dangerous to approach people when all hell went loose and their is no food and water. Yep! Mark my words! Everyone will be "zombies" and the safest guidebook to protect against "zombies" is by reading Zombie Survival Book.
Some people are force to be reckon with even when they are hungry. Once they know you have food, they will be coming toward you and you have no clues who the real criminal or physco.
this is the price when somebody play the selfish and trying to running whit is loaded gun when these survivors are sick and desparate needs helps & security
are you kidding? The world would be shit, people eating each other for food, killing for anything valuable, you could never rebuild civilization after a nuclear apocalypse, anarchism...life would be shit for the ones wandering the wastes...there no economy, and nobody producing the shit we need...but anyway, after Obama came there is no worries, a nuclear war is very unlikely to occur...
I remember seeing this when it first came out on tv. I believe we watched it in 2 segments. I remember that the 2nd segment dealt with the blasts and the aftermath. It must have been at around 4 hours...No? How many hours does this video run altogether? Thanks.
It was a total of two hours and aired in one night, November 20, 1983. It was intended to be a two-part miniseries but Nick Meyer decided that was excessive, surmising that people would "have a hard enough time as it is sitting through one night of Armageddon, let alone two."
Burial worked during the Black Death that killed half the population of Europe. Easier to dig a hole than chop wood and build a fire big enough to completely incinerate the bodies.
Europe bounced back from that, could the world do the same after a nuclear holocaust? Then again, the Black Death hardly brought out the best of Europe even though it indelibly made the continent the way it is today, for better or worse.
there is no way people could bounce back after something like that, suppose they did bury all those bodies, europe was 25- 50 percent of there people dead, dont get me wrong that is a shit load, but there wasnt a nuclear blast, where almost 75% of the world was incinerated and the remaining people who are just slowly dying clean it all up!!, there is no chance for life after something like this. the lucky ones are the ones who died immediately, vaporized. the slow death is hell.
and honest opinions cuz an ice age doesnt involve radiation posioning, dont get me wrong, and ice age is devastating, but radiation poisoning, would probably not only kill you slowly, but kill your sperm too! so do you really think anyone would be able to reproduce. the world would be over for mankind and a new race would take over, probably billions and trillions of roaches
well, from the information I have seen the "nuclear winter" is a fallacy and probably a result of soviet propaganda. I'd link but I can't use it here.
The radiation from even the most dirty nukes will have decayed to safe levels within 4-5 weeks and it would certainly not cover the entire globe but be localised.
Radiation induced infertility is also usually temporary.
I have had enough of your scaremongering, if you think it will prevent a nuclear war then you are mistaken.
Strangely enough last year our major state news paper had an article about "scientists" saying that only a 50 megaton bomb would send the earth into another ice age....it was SERIOUS WTF liberal propaganda, more idiotic than the normal liberal propaganda lol They made no mention of the 3000 or so megatons that were tested.
Only 20% of America's population lives in core urbanised zones, so that 75% incinerated is utter bullshit. The effects of radioactive fallout are severe but localised and far from permanent.
Also countries without nuclear weapons (that would be most countries) would not be attacked at all, South America wouldn't even notice. It certainly won't drive humanity to extinction.
With all due respect, where the hell did you get that figure from? According to a 2007 Census estimate, 81% of the United States' population lives in an urban area.
While I agree with that it may not lead to human extinction, it would behoove you to make sure you have your facts in order before using them to make an argument.
Well I got my info from US Census bureau's own website where it defines "Core urbanised zones" as the part of the city where the population density is over 1000 people per square mile, like downtown LA.
That area would conceivably be struck by a typical 400kt bomb and would effectively cripple a city but the majority (60-70%) who live/work in the suburbs would be out of range and survive.
Urban sprawl has made cities much less vulnerable, plus the most basic evacuations would help tremendously.
That would be true if only one bomb were to be detonated in the urban area. The area I live in has two core cities: one population 1.2 million, the other population 705,000: 2 big bullseyes. And while it is true that fewer people live "downtown" than in the suburbs, in addition to the civilian targets, there are the military; while I am in "the suburbs", I am less than ten miles from a naval air station. I respect your point of view, but I think casualties would occur far beyond city centers.
That's the point, military and civil facilities are the primary and secondary targets, most civilian populations are tertiary and most would likely be hit days later by bomber launched missiles if at all.
There are ~1300 urban areas in USA but almost 10,000 facilities vital to war effort like military bases, air/seaports, energy + infrastructure that make for far more likely targets.
A detonation 10 miles away is FAR from a death sentence & adequate fallout protection is easier than you think.
You have far too much time on your hands. Fair play to you for your research; I simply feel it is all too theoretical. The way I see it, it is best that neither of us are ever proven right or wrong.
400kt is not typical, perhaps in a MIRV ICBM Like the R-36 from the late 60's. "a MIRV payload of 10 warheads, each with a 550-750 kt (kiloton) yield" I would say the average bombs were at least 10 times more powerful than that. Also, for any type of navigation error/defense were targeted with multiple bombs. In addition, cities like Chicago, and bases like Plattsburg would be drowned by nukes placed in their neighboring lakes irradiating fresh water.
"I would say the average bombs were at least 10 times more powerful than (550-750kt)"
That is completely unfounded as only a handful of megaton yield weapons (about 24) were ever deployed by USSR only for hitting HARD targets like Cheyenne Mountain.
Also, the most common version of the R-36 (model 4) deployed during the Cold War had warheads of only 550kt mainly for destroying US silos as stated in Arms Treaties.
i am glad to live in Southamerica, so i wouldn't have to worried of a direct nuclear hit but, anyway we would have to be afraid of a worse global economical crisis ever
well I don't know about now at days, but during the cold war. The USSR would nuke all pro-capitalistic countries, and the US and NATO would nuke all pro-communist countries.
Yes that was true, in Chile during the 80's a soviet nuclear attack was really feared and the goverment did just nothing about it, they gived the retarded advise of "drop, and stay there in fetal position covering your head during a nuclear attack or just stay underground", that oviusly become a scoff target of everyone.
Maybe i didn't lived in such time, but that's why there are history books
@joel that radioactive fallout only goes X amount of distance depending on things like wind speed, its the drop in temperatures caused by nuclear winter which would kill of growing seasons worldwide and that also depends on the level of the nuclear exchanges.
In the opening of this part it shows the frenzy over food rations. I've been raised with the idea of having things stored, not to hoard, but to prepare. I wonder how many people in the world today have 'extra' food and supplies, even just a week's worth. Since we can't control what governments or armies do, at least we could control what we have in our own homes ... TP, soap, peroxide, water, canned beans ... Anything would be oh so valuable in a disaster.
I think those soldiers should have drove off and not told the people because those are desprate people.
Food storage is wonderful, problem I find is when people find out you have that they will flock to you place. Hard part will be turnig them away, problem is that they may kill you for it. Unless you are somewhere where nobody is or dead.
At the very beginning of the clip, workers are seen lowering a body into the mass grave wrapped in the blanket that Airman McCoy gave Cody while they were walking to Lawrence, and Cody is shown watching unsettlingly as the body is lowered in. These inferrences (along with his previously depicted deteriorating condition) lead the viewer to believe, with a fair amount of certainty, that the body is that of Airman McCoy.
i think that the young blind boy and Joleen with their parents will get infected too they touched Denise and she was coverd in the stuff and was that the dad they killed
OH, humanity will survive...but in an entirely different form. Completely unrecognizable. I'd be taking my compliment of cyanide tablets with a 12 year-old scotch chaser, thanks.
The war would certainly destroy the global petroleum distribution network. With that gone, modern agrictulture comes to an end and so do large human populations. The more advanced a nation the less likely they could even offer a token recovery. It would be the poor countries with would suffer the least in my opinion.
ClearSmashDrop 3 months ago
@ClearSmashDrop I agree with you. The ones least dependent upon factory farming and global economics would feel the least; the meek indeed would inherit the Earth.
lothartheterrible 3 months ago
6:30 How convenient. Wonder if JoBeth Williams said, 'give me a quick death, I will not be seen on screen looking anything but pretty,' lol!
Lyra74 3 months ago
@Lyra74 Actually a scene showing her character dying was shot but excised from the film due to time constraints. Besides, haven't you ever seen Poltergeist? She looked like hell by the end of that film.
lothartheterrible 3 months ago
this is a movie based on a fictional war between the u.s. and the former soviet union. there needs to a movie now based on what would happen to the world economy and the world as a whole if there was an all out war between israel and iran or indian and china or any of the lesser buy never the less powerfull nuclar powers in the world today. the day after 2012 redux??
churupaca1 3 months ago
i would shoot those motherfuckers
SuperIwilson 5 months ago in playlist More videos from lothartheterrible
First world blasted right to the thrid world. Famine is a part of humanity. There were always famines. It killed millions in British India in the 19th century, USSR,China, Africa during the cold war, in North Korea after the cold war. During a crysis like this were food is scarce and its given a lil by ratio, you can imagine that you'll starve but still live or just starve to death, you can imagine that people will die and that might be you. It happened and its happening right now
siralucard19 8 months ago
this is EXACTLY one of the reasons WHY not to try to survive a nuclear war. trying to get food just for the day. this is why I choose to die in WW3
TheBATDJNuklier 9 months ago
Worst part of the movie is when that cannibal shot the farmer.
WCWite 1 year ago
@WCWite Took me years to figure out why that guy shot him. When I realized he was killed for food, that just make this disturbing film even more so. It make sense in a gruesome way, food would likely become so scarce that the only things people would have left to eat are each other.
Akira625 10 months ago
@Akira625 they didnt make that obvious. How did you figure it out? I just figured he was caught stealing or something.
MercuryRis 2 weeks ago
Its sad, disgusting and disturbing to say... If a nuclear war were to ever happen (Even a super small one of say, 30 nukes) it would be a lot worse than anything depicted like this. If it was a all-out full scale war, it would be like the 2009 movie THE ROAD. Its painful and emotionally disturbing to watch movies like this.
mrjustin5 1 year ago
Thanks so much for uploading this and providing such great annotations--they were really helpful. Also thanks for staying onboard well after you loaded the film.
PoliticalPars 1 year ago
I watched the second scene being filmed. The portion after bodies are placed with the camp and people milling about. My buddy was an extra. They told the extras to wear old ripped up clothes, then they put bandages on them and sprayed them with gray make up to make them look dirty. This was a pretty devastating film when it aired.
KB4QAA 1 year ago
Bright sunshine in the nuclear winter?
irishchrisc 1 year ago
@irishchrisc This one was written and filmed before the concept of nuclear winter was widely accepted and understood. The first film to accurately portray the phenomenon was Threads, which aired in 1984.
lothartheterrible 1 year ago
@lothartheterrible Watched threads in Ireland when I was ten. Bicycle clip time! (Shit yer pants scary)
irishchrisc 1 year ago
@lothartheterrible this aired in 1983 didn't it?
DartsRme312 1 year ago
@DartsRme312 Yes; November 20, 1983.
lothartheterrible 1 year ago
@irishchrisc Actually, many if not most scientists consider the concept of long term nuclear winter to be a myth.
eragon2121 8 months ago
@eragon2121 Well i think about the Mashall Island testing and I think ground contanimation (sp?) takes longer to clear than air.
MercuryRis 2 weeks ago
@MercuryRis And..?
eragon2121 2 weeks ago
@eragon2121 And I asked him a question. Do you know the answer?
MercuryRis 2 weeks ago
@MercuryRis Sorry, I'm confused dude. You just responded to like a 6 month old post of mine, I don't remember it and can't find it in the comments can you help me out.
eragon2121 2 weeks ago
@eragon2121 or are you just trolling me. What I cant make a point without elaborating with you Mr Eragon2121? I offered my opinion, and I asked a question. What else would you like me to add to your dangling conjunction?
MercuryRis 2 weeks ago
great movie but shouldn't be there a nuclear winter for the next 10 years or so?
kunstsein 1 year ago
@kunstsein This movie was filmed in 1982, before the concept of nuclear winter was fully understood; it had been hypothesized as early as the 1970s, but not researched to the point to where it was well known. The term "nuclear winter" itself wasn't even coined until 1983.
lothartheterrible 1 year ago
@lothartheterrible oh well i didn't know that. thank you for clearing this up.
kunstsein 1 year ago
@kunstsein I dig; I wasn't trying to be a dick. Just informing.
lothartheterrible 1 year ago
@lothartheterrible i know that , i ment it honest
kunstsein 1 year ago
@kunstsein Cool.
lothartheterrible 1 year ago
Please read James Howard Kunstler's "The Long Emergency". While not dealing with a post apocalyptic or post-nuclear world, it DOES address, very wel, what life might be like, and how we might live it (and WHERE) following the inevitable depletion of and subsequence disappearance of **OIL**. There Will Be Blood? You don't know the half of it.
dariodepiante 1 year ago
Topsoil is dying rigth now because of the pesticides and fertilizers right now we dont need a nuclear war to be in trouble. We are gonna be in trouble when we run out of oil.
gavilan1973 1 year ago
The crops for next season? What would be? Half pie in the sky the other half moonshine? How bout a money tree.
Crazydog7 1 year ago
To be honest, I would rather still be in the military rather than any other institution. Although Air, Naval, and missile bases would be hit, the fact that you would be in a still orderly institution with imposed rules and regulations plus food, chemical and nuclear protection, would mean that you would probably last longer than anyone. If you could come to terms with your family or loved ones disapearing off the face of the earth that is.
moleman9000 1 year ago
@moleman9000 Just a historical point, if this is the early/mid eighties, then why do the U.S army look as if they are from the Vietnam conflict. The M31 helmet was phased out in the early eighties to be replaced by those kevlar ones used in the Gulf War and Panama. Furthermore, the U.S army/aiforce soldiers would have donned NBC suits when the nukes started to go off. They wouldn't be walking around looking like they were on manouveres. Lastly the silo guards wouldn've had a shelter too.
moleman9000 1 year ago
@moleman9000 Im sure they could afford all the latest military technology and supplies for a low budget movie.
bwd81977 1 year ago
you shouldnt bury radiated bodies, but burn them....otherwise whentneh bodies decompose they can release the radiation back intot he soil, and if near water, pollute it again
darthkarr 1 year ago
this is your president, John Henry Eden
joshman783 1 year ago
@joshman783 Or is it????
GoldPie11 1 year ago
Millions dead, more on the way
What is worth this cost?
For your god and country
You'd destroy the world
It is madness to believe
That you can survive
Take my word, you'd rather not
It's better just to die
InAGaddaDaVida29 1 year ago
And.. where did they get that cigarrete..??
Anadeliar 1 year ago
@Anadeliar I'm sure they made a few smokes before the war.
lothartheterrible 1 year ago
@Anadeliar His pocket?
moleman9000 1 year ago
Haha! You can see my dad from1:00-1:04. He's the guy with the goofy haircut and the open collar shirt at the top right of the screen.
Kolfritz 1 year ago
Comment removed
Kolfritz 1 year ago
Never find the time to watch the complete film but I really wanna do it...
What is the often mentioned "bathtub lady" scene? Where can I find it?
Ilcristian 1 year ago
Civilized and lost in the sauce.
HipHopcheerleader 1 year ago
You know how some people refuse to believe we are animals? This demonstrates how civilized we are. We create these tools, and weapons. We use them. I hope this will not ever happen in my life time or anyone elses for that matter. This is a hell on earth experience.
HipHopcheerleader 1 year ago
No one is safe. Even a limited conflict between pakistan and india that would involve perhaps a hundred warheads would cause a nuclear winter that would life as we know it. The temperature would plummet, killing the rainforests. The crops would fail, Nuclear war in any capacity, would end human life.
gljazzhead 1 year ago
what were those people getting shot for at the last few seconds of the video
Michaelishis 1 year ago
Probably looting.
lothartheterrible 1 year ago
so they still in a time like that and are have a consequence like that?!?!
Michaelishis 1 year ago
Well right now Russia, Iran, United States, North Korea, and Britain would be the fronts for nuclear war. If you live in Australia or South Africa you are probably safe from most conflicts.
RandomWad 2 years ago
Unfortunately, no country will be safe from the aftermath. The "global economy" that we have nurtured so well is a house of cards ready to tumble; the world is bound together monetarily in more ways than anyone could have imagined even 50 years ago. If just the US, UK, and Russian Federation go down, the rest of the world would follow like the proverbial dominoes. Outlying nations would be able to recover, yes, but the idea that anyone would emerge unscathed is wishful thinking.
lothartheterrible 2 years ago 5
@lothartheterrible Just the collapse of our dollar, which is the world's reserve currency, would send global markets into a tailspin.
Some nations might emerge as powers but in a global nuclear war, so much industry and resources would be lost that it might mark the permanent end of the global superpower. Regional powers would more then likely evolve and the world would become multipolar as opposed to uni or bipolar.
mongoose704 1 year ago
As long as their soils are not contaminated and as longs as their governments and social institutions are up and running. They should be okay. I think. Remember, at the end of WWII. The soviet Union and all of Eastern and Central Europe, China were in complete rubble, but they rebuilt everything in a decade. People would just have to provide for themselves. The worst is that the nuclear war can happen even without our involvement. India and Pakistan u see. Most likely place for a nuclear war
madrid23 1 year ago
@lothartheterrible I agree with you; most of the nations are so interdependent now that most of the nations would suffer if bombs were to be launched, even if only indirectly.
ChaPatEnd59 1 year ago
@lothartheterrible what economy..its alrdy tumbled
darthkarr 1 year ago
@lothartheterrible If there *is* any sort of economic system following a nuclear holocaust, it would probably be based on the barter system, people trading their valuables for food or other essential supplies. But who knows how long that could last, as scarce supplies become even more so, and mass starvation sets in. And since it's unlikely that new food could be grown/produced in such a hostile environment, some people might be so desperate to survive, they might even resort to cannibalism.
Akira625 1 year ago 2
@Akira625 In the extreme, you are probably right. Before conditions degenerate into such, however, your theory about the barter system coming back is probably highly likely to be the immediate reality.
lothartheterrible 1 year ago
@RandomWad
Well, up until the surviving Chinese or Japanese invade you and take your much safer land.
:-P
PARTLY kidding.
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
@RandomWad I hate the conception that Australia would be safe from a nuclear war. Nuclear war is an all or nothing game. You don't have to have the weapons or industrial base to be hit, just being allied to your enemy would put you in danger. Australia would be hit just as any other country in the world would be. No one would be "safe". There IS no "safe".
Nuclear weapons are interesting. They can prevent mass death, yet they can create it. Quite ironic, if you ask me.
WTCTribute 1 year ago
why did that guy just shoot him? that made no sense...
merrittolsen 2 years ago
Since when did looting and delirious behavior make sense?
jmossinca 2 years ago
i wouldn't actually call looking for food when you are starving as looting...looting is breaking into stores and stealing electronics and other similar stuff..
merrittolsen 2 years ago
@merrittolsen
If it's in a store like electronics and similar things such as that, it's looting, regardless of what the store contains.
Bendyournoodle 1 year ago
'cause they're riding around on horses it gives it a kinda sci-fi feel.
moleman9000 2 years ago
Comment removed
DannyAlkhateeb 2 years ago
mass suicides the only way. let sum far flung peoples in new zealand keep alive the human race, selflessly restore as much data as u can for them
burnticeblues 2 years ago
as sad as it is i think firing squads would be necessary to stop people like the one guy who shot that farmer
DUKE2495 2 years ago
Thats what I was wondering?
SprattyD 2 years ago
i live in louisiana and was here after katrina. whew. a total hell on earth. not necessarily from the water but from the people going berserk...totally berserk. there were crazed gang members shooting at coast guard helicoptors bringing in medicine and supplies. shooting at doctors and nurses trying to evacuate the hospitals.
what a change to watch a movie far removed from these people and in a far worse scenario who actually pull together and help eachother rather than looting and rioting.
dale1966gto 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WTF?! We can hear the dialogue!! Stop with the comments!!!!!
spershall 2 years ago
Turn the damned things off, idiot.
lothartheterrible 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check this one for unbeleivable experience in HD!!To See The Movie Go To BigOnlineMovies . c o m
jonnesjane 2 years ago
you miss the point be it naive or foolhardy, NO NUKES NO FALLOUT!!! im just saying.
grips187 2 years ago
I've never been able to understand the firing squad at 8:40. What would be the point of trying to "restore order" after such a horrible exchange? There's nothing left to preserve.
MikestheCat 2 years ago
If you want to rebuild (and survive) you need some sort of structure. I doubt firing squads will do the job but the idea is basically the same.
wittyvegan 2 years ago 2
Mankind has recovered from worse events than those predicted here. Look at the Toba super eruption about 70,000 years ago. They say it killed all but 10,000 of the people alive on earth at the time. Compared to that the worst nuclear war scenario would leave billions of people in the third world to inherit the earth.
The USA and Russia would be in the stone age for 50 years though.
BrendaQG 2 years ago
You miss one important element that was not present in the Toba event: radiation. The amount of radiation released upon the US and Russia alone would make them wastelands for much longer than 50 years. Mankind may indeed survive, but society would break down, and civilization as we know it would cease to exist.
lothartheterrible 2 years ago
No the radiation from the bombs alone wouldn't do all that. Certain areas's where nuclear plants were located, if those plants were hit woul be hot for more like a century.
Second a volcanic supereruption is no joke. It involved more total explosive power than all of the worlds Abombs.
Nuclear war is bad. It cannot be allowed to happen. All I have ever said, is if it does happen, the survivors can't just give up. So we live in a world without a I phone, or electricity for a while.
BrendaQG 2 years ago
I realize that; I minored in Geology. Radioactive fallout rides on the wind; for proof of this, look at Chernobyl; that was a relatively minor event and geiger counters lit up as far away as Scandinavia. A full-scale nuclear attack involving 1000 warheads would be exponentially worse.
Keep in mind, I am not disagreeing with you about volcanoes; when Yellowstone erupts again, the result will be globally catastrophic.
lothartheterrible 2 years ago
I never understood why the airman acted if he was blind,when he couldn't find his shirt.Does radiation sickness cause blindness?
TheGatorfan93 2 years ago
i don't think so, but i'm pretty sure you'd be blinded if you watched the initial fireball after detonation. similar to watching an eclipse of the sun.
dale1966gto 2 years ago
@gatorfan, essentially radiation poising cooks your organs. hair loss, skin lacerations, vomiting, dihorea and it is no surprise even blindness or hysterical blindless
SprattyD 2 years ago
nuclear radiation is just very high energy (like a microwave oven) and when these high energy particles hit solid objects it slows them down somewhat..and the loss of kinetic energy is given off as heat energy..in physics it is know as the second law of thermal dynamics or the conservation of energy..energy is neither gained nor lost..so the loss of kinetic energy (velocity) is given of as thermal (heat)
merrittolsen 2 years ago
nice time of the year fall .........a bit sick dont u think?
foxxxerri 2 years ago
Well,the first thing to do to"prepare" an"aftermath" issavingasmany technical books as posible, inorder rto preserve the ability tobuildmachines and to do"specialistic activities". Then allthe people should concentrate onagricolture,inorder to have soon beans andother impotant nutrientbvegetables. ButI don't understand why Airman McCoy has died of radiation: he was in a shelter when the "little bomb" exploded,and was exposed tovery little fall-out
anisocoro 2 years ago 2
rads can go threw buildings it can go threw anything but some thing in the M1A1abrams tank rads cant get into it
warth4546 2 years ago
it depends on the density of the material the heavier the metal the more protection it has but also the longer it stays radiated
skibicki357 2 years ago
He was exposed to a lot of fallout. When he got out of the shelter that snowy stuff was heavy soot from the explosions; that's the most powerful fallout. The blanket may have protected him from beta burns but he was breathing in alpha and beta emitters with each breath, hence the internal bleeding and acute radiation sickness.
ScoloCentipede 2 years ago
@ Negrotrician: Hahahaha xD
I love that game:P.
As for this movie, it's actually strange that during the cold war the government were very concerned about stratgies and scenarios for a nuclear war but never made preperations for the people whou would survive, yeah they built a lot of bunkers.
But way to few for the american people and also they didn't think about way's to cure radiation and matters alike.
Kinda stupid i think.
WarMovieMaker14 2 years ago
Unfortunately, there's no way to cure radiation without changing the laws of physics.
ScoloCentipede 2 years ago
That's not true, we can release radiation. And if we can figure the out the exact proces of radiation coming into existence, then there will probably (however most likely very complicated) way to reverse that proces.
I imagine some coutner measure muct the same way as i.e. anti-sound. Anti-sound is the production of soundwaves who are identical to soundwaves created by i.e. cars, when they collide the sound is reduced to almost zero. Matter and anti-matter work the same way.
WarMovieMaker14 2 years ago
Radiation causes 'sickness' through ionization, which disrupts cell tissues and DNA. This makes it more akin to a chemical poison than a disease. Without some sort of strong nanotechnology that can fix organic chemistry on at least the molecular level, that sort of damage cannot be repaired artificially. Antisound only works because sound is the transmission of energy through a medium and wave interference can be used to 'cancel out' waves--it's nothing like matter/antimatter!
ScoloCentipede 2 years ago
yeah your mostly right, the example of antisound and antimatter wasn't very good. I just wanted to tackle your argument that radioation sickness can't be cured without chaning the laws of physics.
WarMovieMaker14 2 years ago
Where are the Pipboy3000s?
Negrotrician 2 years ago 22
Just pop some rad-x and you'll be fine.
ajpackman9 2 years ago 2
@ajpackman9 Don't forget 3 Dog! AAAAHHOOOOO! We bring you the news wasteland, no matter how bad it hurt! And now the music...... *40's made up song Chime in.
*turn off Pipboy3000 Radio
Vault Dweller 101 is coming to killed some physco for some karma. XD
Bopkasen 1 year ago
@Bopkasen All this movie needs is Ron Perlman narrating it.
ajpackman9 1 year ago
@Negrotrician where are the enclaves and brotherhood of steels?=)
juggy444 1 year ago
Free world and blew up everyone without whihc is not their choice
gozirn 2 years ago
A strange game, the only winning move is not to play - (Quoting the WOPR supercomputer's comment on nuclear war )
Jonhny2 2 years ago 20
A really good movie
Natejitsu 2 years ago
@Jonhny2 That's right, Joshua! :-)
jimsy73 1 year ago
The scene in the burnt out schoolhouse where the "experts" tell Dahlberg and the other farmers how to prepare for the next harvest is one of my favorite scenes in the whole film . It's almost funny: "Task force... where the hell does he think they're coming from?" John Cullum plays it perfectly as his rising temper points out the ridiculousness of the whole situation. "Where did you get all this information John... all this good advice? Out of some government pamphlet!"
Jacktwo04 2 years ago 3
ya, its a great scene
DaytonaRoadster 2 years ago
Yep, fallout would cover the globe.
swinggalwa 2 years ago 6
the soviet union launched over 300 missiles, plus add in what we fired off, then yea atleast the northern hemisphere would be irraidiated.
tjmick1992 2 years ago 2
Folks who find this movie interesting and/or entertaining will probably enjoy watching the 'Jericho' series, a made-for-TV docudrama, a new-millenium version of The Day After. The script is more expansive & contextually relevant & the acting is more artful & engaging than TDA; The full sequnce of some 24 or so episodes are (as of a coupla months) available on youtube. It seems odd calling these post-apocalypse-type movies 'entertaining' --more like darkly engrossing or tragically captivating.
starmanskye 2 years ago
I just hope Britain would keep out of the nucking part of a war - apparently it would only take 25% of the soviets stockpile to completely decimate us
sailingforde04 2 years ago
It wouldn't matter if the UK did or not. The UK holds many American and NATO military interests, those on there own would be enough to get us wiped out in any strike and that's with out including our own nuclear capabilities.
Even if we somehow managed to avoid any nuclear engagement in an all out war such as this the fall out from the rest of Europe, the former Eastern block, Americas, Northern Africa and the subsequent nuclear winter would leave us dead.
OLYCOM 2 years ago
Well that is the beggining of the trouble. Now America still do hold bases in our country , but not to the extent they used to throught the latter half of the 20th century As far as I am aware they have withdrawn their bombers and ICBM's and only operate about 2 bases , which are part of the early warning system these are actually being handed over to RAF staff So we can live in hope that our country would not be the victim of a direct outright nuclear strike (please correct me if I am wrong)
sailingforde04 2 years ago
I hate this part.... that guy gets shot.
Ultima770 2 years ago 3
Yes, one my favorite actors, John Cullum, lucky to have met him Jan. 10 in NYC, he was so nice! When 9/11 happened, I immediately thought of this film. Livng in NJ, it was chilling
janeinuk 2 years ago 2
@Ultima770 Remind me how dangerous to approach people when all hell went loose and their is no food and water. Yep! Mark my words! Everyone will be "zombies" and the safest guidebook to protect against "zombies" is by reading Zombie Survival Book.
Some people are force to be reckon with even when they are hungry. Once they know you have food, they will be coming toward you and you have no clues who the real criminal or physco.
Bopkasen 1 year ago
If the US and Russian went to nuclear war it would not matter if you were in south Africa everyone in the world would be effected
darkhunter2100 2 years ago
5:02 - this is my home
this is the price when somebody play the selfish and trying to running whit is loaded gun when these survivors are sick and desparate needs helps & security
PAOWFFF!!!
patmix 2 years ago
are you kidding? The world would be shit, people eating each other for food, killing for anything valuable, you could never rebuild civilization after a nuclear apocalypse, anarchism...life would be shit for the ones wandering the wastes...there no economy, and nobody producing the shit we need...but anyway, after Obama came there is no worries, a nuclear war is very unlikely to occur...
SiggiPulsa 2 years ago
USSR tested a 50 Mt bomb : Tsar Bomba (see videos)
LeKeneguit 2 years ago
62 actually ;)
akilkline 2 years ago
Thanks! Some things aren't totally clear after nearly 26 years. Shoot! Some things aren't totally clear after one month!
fatdanios 3 years ago
Did he that say nurse Bower died of meningitis?
They sure did mumble those lines!
fatdanios 3 years ago 3
Yes. A death scene was planned but cut when the film was pared from 4 hours to two.
lothartheterrible 3 years ago
I remember seeing this when it first came out on tv. I believe we watched it in 2 segments. I remember that the 2nd segment dealt with the blasts and the aftermath. It must have been at around 4 hours...No? How many hours does this video run altogether? Thanks.
fatdanios 3 years ago
It was a total of two hours and aired in one night, November 20, 1983. It was intended to be a two-part miniseries but Nick Meyer decided that was excessive, surmising that people would "have a hard enough time as it is sitting through one night of Armageddon, let alone two."
lothartheterrible 3 years ago
If they were smart they would burn these bodies, not waste time burying them, body bagging, and letting them rot and become disease-ridden.
clayton7m 3 years ago 2
No choice if there is no fuel for cremations. I expect fuel stocks would have been seized and controlled
DJgaZman 3 years ago 3
Burial worked during the Black Death that killed half the population of Europe. Easier to dig a hole than chop wood and build a fire big enough to completely incinerate the bodies.
Europe bounced back from that, could the world do the same after a nuclear holocaust? Then again, the Black Death hardly brought out the best of Europe even though it indelibly made the continent the way it is today, for better or worse.
Treblaine 3 years ago
there is no way people could bounce back after something like that, suppose they did bury all those bodies, europe was 25- 50 percent of there people dead, dont get me wrong that is a shit load, but there wasnt a nuclear blast, where almost 75% of the world was incinerated and the remaining people who are just slowly dying clean it all up!!, there is no chance for life after something like this. the lucky ones are the ones who died immediately, vaporized. the slow death is hell.
bigrussthefuss 2 years ago
Are you speaking from the opinion of someone who has studied nuclear war extensively or are you speaking as a layman?
You just have to look at what humans have survived before, at least two ice ages and that is with literally no modern technology.
Also, don't be ignorant about nuclear fallout. "On The Beach" is not a respected source for studying the survival chances with nuclear fallout.
Treblaine 2 years ago
fact checked!
and honest opinions cuz an ice age doesnt involve radiation posioning, dont get me wrong, and ice age is devastating, but radiation poisoning, would probably not only kill you slowly, but kill your sperm too! so do you really think anyone would be able to reproduce. the world would be over for mankind and a new race would take over, probably billions and trillions of roaches
bigrussthefuss 2 years ago
well, from the information I have seen the "nuclear winter" is a fallacy and probably a result of soviet propaganda. I'd link but I can't use it here.
The radiation from even the most dirty nukes will have decayed to safe levels within 4-5 weeks and it would certainly not cover the entire globe but be localised.
Radiation induced infertility is also usually temporary.
I have had enough of your scaremongering, if you think it will prevent a nuclear war then you are mistaken.
Treblaine 2 years ago
Strangely enough last year our major state news paper had an article about "scientists" saying that only a 50 megaton bomb would send the earth into another ice age....it was SERIOUS WTF liberal propaganda, more idiotic than the normal liberal propaganda lol They made no mention of the 3000 or so megatons that were tested.
wtfanman60 2 years ago
Only 20% of America's population lives in core urbanised zones, so that 75% incinerated is utter bullshit. The effects of radioactive fallout are severe but localised and far from permanent.
Also countries without nuclear weapons (that would be most countries) would not be attacked at all, South America wouldn't even notice. It certainly won't drive humanity to extinction.
Treblaine 2 years ago
With all due respect, where the hell did you get that figure from? According to a 2007 Census estimate, 81% of the United States' population lives in an urban area.
While I agree with that it may not lead to human extinction, it would behoove you to make sure you have your facts in order before using them to make an argument.
lothartheterrible 2 years ago
Well I got my info from US Census bureau's own website where it defines "Core urbanised zones" as the part of the city where the population density is over 1000 people per square mile, like downtown LA.
That area would conceivably be struck by a typical 400kt bomb and would effectively cripple a city but the majority (60-70%) who live/work in the suburbs would be out of range and survive.
Urban sprawl has made cities much less vulnerable, plus the most basic evacuations would help tremendously.
Treblaine 2 years ago
That would be true if only one bomb were to be detonated in the urban area. The area I live in has two core cities: one population 1.2 million, the other population 705,000: 2 big bullseyes. And while it is true that fewer people live "downtown" than in the suburbs, in addition to the civilian targets, there are the military; while I am in "the suburbs", I am less than ten miles from a naval air station. I respect your point of view, but I think casualties would occur far beyond city centers.
lothartheterrible 2 years ago
That's the point, military and civil facilities are the primary and secondary targets, most civilian populations are tertiary and most would likely be hit days later by bomber launched missiles if at all.
There are ~1300 urban areas in USA but almost 10,000 facilities vital to war effort like military bases, air/seaports, energy + infrastructure that make for far more likely targets.
A detonation 10 miles away is FAR from a death sentence & adequate fallout protection is easier than you think.
Treblaine 2 years ago
You have far too much time on your hands. Fair play to you for your research; I simply feel it is all too theoretical. The way I see it, it is best that neither of us are ever proven right or wrong.
lothartheterrible 2 years ago
I think we can both agree on that point.
Treblaine 2 years ago
400kt is not typical, perhaps in a MIRV ICBM Like the R-36 from the late 60's. "a MIRV payload of 10 warheads, each with a 550-750 kt (kiloton) yield" I would say the average bombs were at least 10 times more powerful than that. Also, for any type of navigation error/defense were targeted with multiple bombs. In addition, cities like Chicago, and bases like Plattsburg would be drowned by nukes placed in their neighboring lakes irradiating fresh water.
wtfanman60 2 years ago
"I would say the average bombs were at least 10 times more powerful than (550-750kt)"
That is completely unfounded as only a handful of megaton yield weapons (about 24) were ever deployed by USSR only for hitting HARD targets like Cheyenne Mountain.
Also, the most common version of the R-36 (model 4) deployed during the Cold War had warheads of only 550kt mainly for destroying US silos as stated in Arms Treaties.
SLBMs and Cruise Missiles were only 100-200kt.
This is all from fas(dot ) org
Treblaine 2 years ago
Ah you're right, I was lumping together the potential payload of the multi-warhead missiles. Yeah, there were lots of "small" bombs.
wtfanman60 2 years ago
i am glad to live in Southamerica, so i wouldn't have to worried of a direct nuclear hit but, anyway we would have to be afraid of a worse global economical crisis ever
Edomaestro09 2 years ago
And the fallout
mattwu911 2 years ago
You really think you'd be safe in South America?
Nicecatholicgirl 2 years ago
South America wouldn't be involved in a nuclear war, my country Chile and many others had been neutral since the XX century in all wars.
Edomaestro09 2 years ago
Lmao...dude they will nuke all when the next war comes..so don't pat yourself on the back just yet lol.
WatchmenAz 2 years ago
well I don't know about now at days, but during the cold war. The USSR would nuke all pro-capitalistic countries, and the US and NATO would nuke all pro-communist countries.
Ultima770 2 years ago
Yes that was true, in Chile during the 80's a soviet nuclear attack was really feared and the goverment did just nothing about it, they gived the retarded advise of "drop, and stay there in fetal position covering your head during a nuclear attack or just stay underground", that oviusly become a scoff target of everyone.
Maybe i didn't lived in such time, but that's why there are history books
Edomaestro09 2 years ago
Why would anyone want to nuke Chile of all places?
wizword 2 years ago
well if all bombs go off then you're not safe anywhere
Youmakemefart 2 years ago 2
Dude it doesn't matter where you live, nuclear fallout'd spread worldwide
Joel354vanfanel 2 years ago 4
@joel that radioactive fallout only goes X amount of distance depending on things like wind speed, its the drop in temperatures caused by nuclear winter which would kill of growing seasons worldwide and that also depends on the level of the nuclear exchanges.
SprattyD 2 years ago
Did you notice how after the guy shot mr.dahlberg, he pulled out his knife and put it under the fire, I think they were about to eat him...
topizzaface 3 years ago
ZOMBIES MY MAN! ZOMMMMMBIIIIES.
I mean did you look at the little girl? Beyond creeps.
COREYHELLO 3 years ago 6
i know jeez!
Keyfaze 3 years ago 2
In the opening of this part it shows the frenzy over food rations. I've been raised with the idea of having things stored, not to hoard, but to prepare. I wonder how many people in the world today have 'extra' food and supplies, even just a week's worth. Since we can't control what governments or armies do, at least we could control what we have in our own homes ... TP, soap, peroxide, water, canned beans ... Anything would be oh so valuable in a disaster.
I hate it when the farmer gets shot.
alexanderama 3 years ago 5
For what shot? And for for what was this dawn war? Why???? No winners only death men and women, death land and more people who will die soon....
nickpaulie 3 years ago 2
I think those soldiers should have drove off and not told the people because those are desprate people.
Food storage is wonderful, problem I find is when people find out you have that they will flock to you place. Hard part will be turnig them away, problem is that they may kill you for it. Unless you are somewhere where nobody is or dead.
23Revan84 3 years ago 4
Wait, what happened to McCoy? I don't think I saw him in this clip?
Sammyth 3 years ago
At the very beginning of the clip, workers are seen lowering a body into the mass grave wrapped in the blanket that Airman McCoy gave Cody while they were walking to Lawrence, and Cody is shown watching unsettlingly as the body is lowered in. These inferrences (along with his previously depicted deteriorating condition) lead the viewer to believe, with a fair amount of certainty, that the body is that of Airman McCoy.
lothartheterrible 3 years ago
i think that the young blind boy and Joleen with their parents will get infected too they touched Denise and she was coverd in the stuff and was that the dad they killed
freacls 3 years ago
OH, humanity will survive...but in an entirely different form. Completely unrecognizable. I'd be taking my compliment of cyanide tablets with a 12 year-old scotch chaser, thanks.
PeregrineC 3 years ago 8
After a nuclear war, that's it. Humanity is finished. Society will collaspe due to being desperate to survive......
It will be like Mad Max....
MrSoprano0125 3 years ago 9