With regard to the recent events in North Korea?

Question

Just imagine for a moment that full nuclear war broke out.
Is their any place in the world where you might be safe? Like a medium sized island in the middle of the pacific?

Also do you know of any websites where they described the after effect of such destruction?
Sorry if I sound morbid, but alot of people are upset with the recent nuclear bomb test in North Korea and I'm curious!

Answer 1

Don't sweat it. At this time they have no method to deliver it. Unless you think they can transport a device to the US, assemble, then detonate it. They have inferior missile delivery systems.

If you wanna see some great vintage footage check out the film I linked to.

Answer 2

Let's consider first how many countries are nuclear weapons capable. USA, Japan, Russia, China, North and South Korea, Israel just to name the big guns, there are more. All out nuclear war would not just be confined to land masses, remember there are nuclear subs in the oceans of the world that would be launching not only toward land, but with nuclear tipped torpedoes, also at each other.
The earthquakes and volcanoes caused by such massive explosions would devastate the pacific rim. Tsunamis would radiate from points all around the globe.
The atmosphere would be filled with radiation and blown around the entire earth by jet-streams and concussion winds.
The sky would be blackened by toxic debris and ash, temperatures would fall....Well, you get the picture. The safest place? Far out in space traveling to find a new home, hopefully.
Look to National Geographic for more. But if you want to see a short sample of the potential destruction, check out "The Day After" at your local movie rental place.

Answer 3

This would depend on the amount of radioactive material released. You use the term “full nuclear war”, based on the assumption that you are implying an unlimited exchange with all capable countries involved. There would be no long-term safe place. Since there are no nuclear capable countries in the southern hemisphere and we assume that those countries would therefore not be engaged in the war extreme southern areas would be safe for a few years (maybe 10) possibly more before you died slowly of radiation exposure. Probably better to be vaporized. the northern hemisphere would be in full nuclear winter within 2 yrs.

Answer 4

Very imaginative! There are many ways of surviving a nuclear war, they are not proven to work though.

You could live in a sparsely populated area then it is less likely they would waste an expencive nuclear bomb on a few people.
You could live on an islandproviding it is away from the carnage of a nuclear war. If you want an idea on how horriffic nuclear bomb effects are then look up Hiroshima and Nagasake ( the 2 places in world war two that had atomic bombs dropped on them).

Answer 5

Might not be as bad as you think. There are things that could be done to minimise the effects of a nuclear war. Simple things such as seeding clouds and causing rain in the area of the war would reduce the effects significantly. The military has a lot of weather control technology. All of it is classified. If you avoided breathing the radioactive dust (there are simple ways to prevent this), you would reduce you exposure to radiation and cancer significantly. Equally, if you ate chelants (which reduce the ability of the radioactive particles to be absorbed and retained by your body) and regularly washed and changed clothes, your absorption of radioactive particles would be reduce further. Regular doses of potassium iodide would reduce the risk of thyroid cancer.

Basically, it you could avoid being in a area that was directly bombed and immediately down wind, you would have a pretty good chance. If you where in a different continent, your chances of survival would be very good. there is much evidence that low levels of radiation are not has harmful as we previously thought. A nuclear war would suck but most of us would survive. The economy is another matter.

Answer 6

Earth can only tolerance some number of nuclear explosion on the surface. So when you say full nuclear war, it is over for all animals on the surface of Earth.

If we just look at the current event N Korea has not proven they have the ability to launch any nuclear attack to any places. Yes they may have nuclear bomb. But it does not mean they can put on a missle to launch it. Making a warhead is different from making a bomb.

There may be war but it will only affect the Korea peninsula. And it will not be nuclear war.

Answer 7

I think that is not right to feel safe if USA INDIA RUSIA ISRAEL FRANCE and some other countries have nuclear weapons and at the same time try to prevent N. Korea from optaining such weapons.

Answer 8

If a full scale nuclear war broke out there would be nowhere safe in the universe, radiation spreads!

Answer 9

nicely, back to the chilly conflict. yet this time Russia has the earnings because its economic device isn't suffering like the U. S.' and additionally because of the fact the Communist boogeyman is long gone from the scene. i truly think of the ecu and NATO are making a huge mistake in going alongside the U. S. in the way it needs to make Russia pay for the "outcomes" of its movements. Russia will in reaction deliver back its old allies and, working example, place missiles in Cuba in keeping with US missiles in Poland. This time Russia won't back off

Answer 10

the old roman saying comes to mind.
" if u want peace prepare for war"
would we have done saddam in if he was nuclear?