Nuclear apocalypse in real life.

[Fatalmasterpiece]

... should keep pretty well for ever. Under normal storage conditions diesel fuel can be expected to stay in a usable condition for: 12 months or longer at an ambient of 20ºC. 6-12 months at an ambient temperature higher than 30ºC.

 

If by for ever you mean... 6-12 months? In most of the USA over here it's higher than 25°c for much of the year. So like I said, after a year petroleum fuel will not be a useable form of fuel.

 

Not to mention the engine rebuilds you are going to have to do from equipment sitting unused with fuel in it.

 

Sure, you can make biodiesel, but most people don't have those skills, not to mention the additional mechanical ability to repair and adapt equipment so it can use said biodiesel.

 

In other words, like I was saying, films like Mad Max wouldn't have made much sense.

[phoenix777]

... should keep pretty well for ever. Under normal storage conditions diesel fuel can be expected to stay in a usable condition for: 12 months or longer at an ambient of 20ºC. 6-12 months at an ambient temperature higher than 30ºC.

If by for ever you mean... 6-12 months? In most of the USA over here it's higher than 25°c for much of the year. So like I said, after a year petroleum fuel will not be a useable form of fuel. Not to mention the engine rebuilds you are going to have to do from equipment sitting unused with fuel in it. Sure, you can make biodiesel, but most people don't have those skills, not to mention the additional mechanical ability to repair and adapt equipment so it can use said biodiesel. In other words, like I was saying, films like Mad Max wouldn't have made much sense.

 

It's obvious you don't know much about storage, if you keep thinking of a small fuel tank on a car then it's ambient temperature would soon rise to external temperatures, but if you take a 20,000 gallon storage container submerged into the ground it would never have enough time to reach an ambient temperature of 30C as temperatures fluctuate a lot throughout a 24hour cycle, yes you may reach over 30C in the day time but temperatures also drop at nighttime.

 

Nevada is the driest state in the US. It is made up of mostly desert and semiarid climate regions, daytime summer temperatures sometimes may rise as high as 125 °F (52 °C) and nighttime winter temperatures may reach as low as −50 °F (−46 °C).

Nevada's 125 °F (52 °C) reading is the third highest temperature recorded in the U.S. just behind Arizona's 128 °F (53 °C) reading and California's 134 °F (57 °C).

 

Second of all it wouldn't take much to drain systems for long term storage so that there wouldn't be fuel sitting in them.

 

DUH, I think I will just leave my Jeep with a full tank of fuel sitting in it whilst I trek across the world. Think about it - if you survive your going to drive straight out of town into the middle of nowhere and then what? leave your transportation to seize up or someone to come along with fuel and take it or are you going to drain the systems into suitable storage containers and take the battery?

 

Biodiesel is meant to be used in standard diesel engines and is thus distinct from the vegetable and waste oils used to fuel converted diesel engines. Biodiesel can be used alone, or blended with petrodiesel.

Biodiesel requires little skill or equipment, what it does take is time and a smell most people can't live with.

 

Equipment required

• 45 gallon drum.

• 1/2 or 3/4 Hp electric motor.

• Two pulleys which produce 250 rpm and a max of 750 rpm at mixer blade.

• A belt for the above.

• 12 inch rolled steel rod.

• Two steel shelf brackets (for the blade).

• 1 1/2 inch (38mm) brass ball valve.

• A hinge and a spring to act as a belt tensioned.

• 2000-watt electric water heater element.

• A water heater thermostat.

• 1 1/2 diameter piece of steel pipe * 3-5 inches long with male threads on one end.

• Power source

Leftover Glycerine can be made into soap.

 

There are many recipes for making biodiesel.

 

Biodiesel is already available to buy commercially

 

Also if your interested check out Lazy guide to make Biodiesel

 

In other words like I was saying, stop saying I'm wrong without even providing an once of evidence to prove I'm wrong.

 

Also I have been going on about Diesel fuel (Petrodiesel) not Petrol fuel.

Edited July 21, 2012 by phoenix777

[Talwyn224]

This has been a rather lively and at times interesting thread with the inevitable degeneration into the "no I'm right, screw you" being thrown about and of course Godwin's law sneaking into it with a mention of Hitler. It's beautiful to read! [need more popcorn!] And from the tone of some posts that have gone back and forth, I'd have said an all out nuclear exchange between the parties involved would have been a for gone conclusion as well! :thumbsup:

 

But in all seriousness there have been some very good posts regarding the possibilities of survival in Post Apocalyptia citing some credible sources of information, reasonable and logical plans of survival and what peoples chances might be.

 

As pointed out, most people living near major military bases, industrial facilities, major population centres would have slim to almost zero chances of survival in the event of nuclear war. However I put a caveat on that statement as not all major centres would be targets and here is why:

 

Can anyone think of a reason why any of the 5 major nations who have nukes would want to want to nuke say a place like Walis Bay in Namibia? [look it up on google maps]

 

Answer - none of them.

 

This is the point in which I think people are missing. There are loads of places in the world, especially Africa, South and Central America that would escape the holocaust simply because they are not deemed threatening enough. Also, a majority of these places are in the southern hemisphere which admittedly does have some definite nuclear targets, would escape a lot of the massive fallout clouds which would blanket the northern hemisphere.

 

In addition, many of these places still are effectively in a pre 1950's stage of industrialisation and as such aren't so reliant on modern mechanisation and electronics. Many machines would still function or be repaired as they have been doing for over a 100 years. Farming is still fairly basic in many areas, relying on animal power etc. Yes there'd be starvation and such but there'd be less of a breakdown of society as you could envisage happening in a nation that's received a full blown nuclear attack. If most of the towns and cities in a 3rd world nation remain intact then the government structures etc would be there and thus have the ability to respond, albeit not as effectively as they could have prior to a nuclear war, to the challenge. If anything, I would predict that human civilisation would begin again from out of Africa, and possibly South America. So Jesus was right when he said the poor and meek would inherit the earth :tongue:

 

So if you think Armageddon is coming, go south! If you can before the bombs start to fall that is.

[phoenix777]

 

 

Very well said, couldn't agree more.

 

It is true that the less threat an area is the less likely it would be attacked which would mostly consist of sparsely populated areas and areas which are considered behind the rest of the world.

I can't see why they would waste an entire nuke on an island in the middle of the ocean with a population of 3000 or even less.

And these community's would most likle carry on as normal as if nothing had happened.

 

I also can't see why they would waste so many nukes to try to hit every airfield in the target countries, there are simply too many of them, they would most likely go for blanket coverage and that would leave areas affected differently depending how close they are to the detonation zone.

 

In other words if your in an area which is on the outskirts of the blast radius's then you would likely receive little impact compared to a few miles from detonation.

 

The only way they would be able to counteract this would be in waves of nukes blanketing the same areas with different detonation zones but for each separate wave would require as many nukes as the first wave.

This would be very impracticable and would require more nukes for 1 country than is known to be available to any country, this would require co-operation from other countries just to take out 1 country, with this scenario you would end up with entire countries untouched purely due to running out of nukes.

 

So to simply put, in the less threatening area you live in the better chances you have of survival.

[Talwyn224]

Thanks phoenix777 :biggrin:

 

I agree that saturation bombing using such weapons like MIRV's would make huge areas massive kill zones and wreck massive destruction in prime target zones. So anyone near those areas had better be deep underground in really good reinforced bunkers if they hope to survive the initial strikes. In addition, the background radiation would be high for months, if not years in areas that were heavily hit so scavenging in the ruins would be a bad idea for quite a while too.

 

I'd predict that in nations that were hardest hit, unless some of the military command structure and units survived, then anarchy and total break down of civil society would follow. If there were enough soldiers around and that they keep discipline, the there is a chance for some sort of order to be re-established once the bombing stops.

 

I think that places that aren't in the immediate vicinity of blasts would soon be overwhelmed by refugees and again chaos would follow. It's only areas that are at least 100km away from major target zones that stand any chance of maintaining a semblance of order but that also depends on the personalities and preparedness of those in the communities.

 

Being a small group of survivalists trying to keep your heads down will only work for so long unless you happen to be in an extremely rugged and inaccessible region. I would say that we'd see something akin to raider bands form very quickly after the war and these human vultures would be extremely dangerous. So unless your group is heavily armed and knows that there are raiders in your area and your ready for them, you will probably get raided or worse. And even if you drive them off, word will get about that there are guns and people in that area and others will come looking.

 

The best bet is to be in a community of between 2000 - 10000 or so people in a rural/agricultural area or by the sea, which is at least 100km plus away from target areas or even better, in places like the southern hemisphere as I'd mentioned earlier.

 

The other best method of survival is having a yacht. Stock up your boat with as much as you can and set sail immediately when the bombs start falling and head south to small places that have established communities. Make sure you bring items that are worth trading as well. If you have a skill set that is useful then your chances of being accepted into the new community will be greatly improved. For example, being a medical doctor, nurse, health professional, engineer, mechanic, builder, carpenter, electrician, farmer, soldier [or someone who's had good combat training], teacher/academic, chef, skilled administrator would be to your advantage. Anyone else would just be another mouth to feed and could only be useful as labour.

[phoenix777]

 

Agreed.

This is how this thread should be.

Instead of slagging people off and just spewing your all going to die and fail.

 

At last some constructive comments which are valid, reasonable and makes sense.

 

I can't find anything wrong with what you've posted, clearly you have sense.

 

Your absoultly right about yachts and I would add siling ships.

This is how mankind traversed the globe for thousands of years and enabled large groups to travel together.

GB colonised the Americas with people, supplys and equipment quite effectively without the capability of steam, fueled or electric transportation. The only powered transportation they had was mamals.