Could you survive if Russian nukes started falling on your city?

Check out Sagger- Yom Kippur War strategy simulator, sponsoring this video
👉get 10% discount with this link to Sagger premium
join here: sagger.com/store/?ref=89aQR2o...
This video talks about the effects of nuclear blasts in urban surroundings, like big cities. How would the blast wave, radiation, heat wave and the EMP behave in such environments? What are your chances of survival? And where to hide? This video tries to answer it all.
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com​
Images used in the thumbnail:
Manhattan skyline by Fred Hsu on en.wikipedia, CC BY-SA 4.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/..., via Wikimedia Commons
Licorne nuclear test by French Ministry of Defense
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov​
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com​
You can also browse for other Binkov T-Shirts or Binkov merch, via the store at our website, binkov.com/​
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / binkovsbatt...​
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattl...​
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov

[@Binkov]

Check out Sagger- Yom Kippur War strategy simulator 👉get 10% discount with this link to sagger premium join here: sagger.com/store/?ref=89aQR2ogVqKQL PROVE YOURSELF!! Take the lead and command the Israeli army through the actual historical events of the Yom Kippur War in SAGGER interactive strategy simulator system. Sagger is a historical strategy simulator where you stand in the position of the commander-in-chief during the Yom Kippur War. Your decisions will lead you to victory and glory of Israel or significant loss and nuclear catastrophe!! In Sagger, you can decide and play the "WHAT IF.." game No more guessing is needed! Sagger is first of its kind based on historical facts, decision-making simulator, which allows you to check how a single decision would impact war results. You will struggle with time, incomplete information from the battlefield, and a tremendous sense of responsibility for the country's future. Will you prove to be a great leader like Golda Meir? Now it's your turn!! Will you be able to make good decisions with the knowledge you got?

[@prezmrmthegreatiinnovative3235]

i have ideas for new vids: 1. what would a modern day operation barbarossa look like 2. what would a modern gulf iraq syrian and vietnam war look like 3. what would a modern ww1 ww2 and cold war look like

[@missk1697]

I want to play as the Arabs, though.

[@amacca2085]

Sagger as in the ATGM

[@itaycohen7241]

Can you do Israel and Ukraine VS Russia and Belarus.

[@ericroux8723]

Fire storms are even less likely than you state in US cities as most us non-house buildings are equipped with fire sprinklers. These fire sprinklers would automatically activate and help to douse the flames. Cities like SF even have ordinances that require the retrofitting of sprinklers to all buildings. I am a fire protection engineer int he SF bay area.

[@SparkBerry]

People in the Southern Hemisphere be like "Oi, what's going on up there?"

[@Kayzef2003]

And that's why people are already applying for passports to countries in the southern hemisphere... Sheesh keep it a secret.

[@viniciusdomenighi6439]

Governments would probably become extremely authoritarian to maintain order in a world with almost no communications and no international trade. I can say that the local order would prevail more.Perhaps big countries like Brazil or Australia and Argentina would succumb to separatism and crack in various parts.

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

Nuclear fallout blowing across the globe..

[@C0LL0SSUS]

@@user-dv7hq2rh4g exactly. Just be prolonging the inevitable.

[@Russo-Delenda-Est]

@@user-dv7hq2rh4g Radiation would probably increase cancer rates by a noticeable percentage, and a decade or so of nuclear winter would cause massive famines, but no, many millions, maybe even billions of people would survive. This is the defeatist attitude he's talking about. Nuclear war would be horrible, and might cut the population by two thirds, but it isn't the end of the world. Give it a century or two and we'd recover.

[@cookeecutkk]

The question in a nuclear war always is, not whether one will survive, but rather if they’d want to survive…

[@kevinyoung9557]

Word!

[@doctyler5382]

Exactly I'm so close to DCI might not even know it's happening, There will be a Flash and I'll be dust...

[@SephirothRyu]

If the Bronze Age Collapse has taught me anything, you do NOT want to be in a city when any level of collapse happens. Cities are places of death. And then future looting. Even if you are in a shelter or something, you are then stuck having to escape the now-no-longer-supplied city deathscape.

[@jonhall2274]

You're expecting half these people to have a highschool level of education? High expectations you have here.

[@sammiller6631]

The Bronze Age? That's sad cringe if you need to stretch so far. The countryside is a place of death, because locals don't want you there. If you have "shelter or something", you are safer than getting stuck in a traffic pileup without a stockpile of supplies at home. You watch too many movies. Movies are expected to be exciting. Reality is dull and boring.

[@wannabecriminalman]

People tend to badly overestimate how many people would die in a nuclear exchange, and badly underestimate how many would die in the resulting economic catastrophe and famine.

[@liborkozak8938]

Well those people died when the first nuke left the silo so it doesn't really make sence to separate those two deadcounts

[@petermuller608]

Yeah, surviving the initial blast is not the issue. Surviving the aftermath is. I think Threads paints the picture quite well

[@lampshade6967]

That movie is fucking scary

[@militaristicsoldier856]

Threads is bullshit scare mongering, although well made, the day after is more accurate

[@jaffacalling53]

Threads is still hippie propaganda. Britain returning to a pre-industrial civilization 10 years later is retarded.

[@nematolvajkergetok5104]

OK, so how many kilotons would one need to eradicate San Francisco completely? Asking for a friend.

[@Fierysaint1]

If you want to vaporize it, about 20 megatons.

[@StarlightSocialist]

I also arrived at 20 megatons estimate. If "eradicate" refers to dehousing then detonation altitude is 8,480 meters and impact point should be adjusted inland by a few hundred meters. Be advised that these parameters DO NOT produce substantial fallout or radiation casualties. If "eradicate" refers to the identity of the city then yield can be much lower, around 400 kilotons. Important perameters are ground-burst and wind direction from west-north-west. This maximizes fallout and gives good coverage of population centers and evacuation routes. Initial damage to the city is only substantial; eventual destruction is via voluntary depopulation resulting from psychological factors. Paradoxically, a lower yield weapon may perform better in this role, since walking-wounded are the vector for cultural impact. Regardless of yield, "salting" should be employed to maximize long lived fission product contamination. Also be advised that these two options are local maxima for prompt/inevitable destruction under the assumption of single warhead limit. Attack profiles consisting of multiple strikes with variance in location and time of impact will produce much better results from lower total yields. However, the number of combinations rises exponentially with warhead count and the many permutations are outside the scope of this report. Have a wonderful day!

[@DavidGatto]

You don't even need direct hits in the modern Era. Even a missile defense (like the 60's style defense system) that cloud bursted your opponents weapons, across all level of possible trajectories, would collapse the food chain and quite possibly kill all life on earth - except for cockroach 🪳 and assorted bugs and microorganisms.

[@StarlightSocialist]

@@DavidGatto So the good news is that it takes more than a few nuclear weapons disintegrating at high altitude and scattering radioactive contamination over a continent to be cataclysmic. Don't get me wrong, it's still a disaster. Also you are correct that ABM systems intercepting a warhead would still result in shower radioactive debris. The bad news is that a continent being showered by several nukes worth of uranium has already happened. Kosmos 954 was a Soviet radar recon satellite powered by a nuclear reactor. Not an RTG, those can't provide the 3 kilowatts needed to run the radar, but a liquid metal cooled, fast neutron, compact nuclear reactor. Contains a little under 50 kilograms of uranium enriched to about 92 percent. At the end of their life the reactor is supposed to be ejected into a high orbit, but that didn't always work and Kosmos 954 burned up on reentry. A nuke _might_ have eight kilograms of weapons grade uranium or plutonium. The disintegrating radar sat had eight times as much and scattered it all over Canada. We got lucky that it was a sparsely populated area and it required a _huge_ clean up effort costing billions of dollars and God knows how many man hours, but it wasn't the end of the world. Kosmos 1402 _also_ burned up in the atmosphere but it scattered itself over the Atlantic. Not all the satellites made it into orbit, one went into the Pacific north of Japan after the launch rocket failed. It's still there.

[@damm41]

@@Fierysaint1 keep in mind buildings are Much more stable than when last used in an urban setting.

[@missk1697]

Russia: *Nukes US* Taliban, North Korea: *Immediately claims responsibility*

[@blackbird_actual]

The problem, when talking about a total nuclear war and not a country being hit with just one nuke, is not so much surviving the initial detonation, but the chaos and societal deterioration afterwards. With no outside help coming into the city to restore order and provide massive medical aid, a nuked city would absolutely be hell on earth for any survivors.

[@patclark2186]

Who says no aid would be coming? US has lots and lots of little towns with small hospitals police depts, national guard armorys fire dept. . Look up the "Nifty Nugget" wargame from the Regan era. An old plan , not desirable, but there is/was a plan in place.

[@blackbird_actual]

@@patclark2186 It seems extremely unlikely that, in the event of a total nuclear war, smaller surrounding towns would sacrifice precious resources trying to get to the city and help whoever's left alive. More likely in my mind would be some of the city's survivors trying to escape on foot in the aftermath to go find somewhere safer. Unless the smaller towns weren't terribly far away, many of those who could leave the city would likely die on the way from radiation poisoning, exposure to the elements(depending on season), other diseases(no available medicine or lack of treatment for otherwise minor illnesses/infections), or attacks by other survivors trying to loot supplies.

[@patclark2186]

@@blackbird_actual You may be right.. and it does depend on definitions of thing like total or smaller and may. But the evidence is. The US has about 2 years of petroleum in its reserves. Power lines can be restrung like after an ice storm or hurricane. So in 2 weeks (thats when its safe to walk again on ground zero) tractors, heavy equipment and work crews should be able to work there way into the cities. And about 25 Billion bushels of grain in rural stockpiles. Meat supply ,fruits vegetables, concrete, iron ,copper, wood, cotton fertilizers all come from rural areas thats what rural means ... So I doubt that the towns/farms (where all the food/resources comes from) would worry much about sharing supply .........thats what they do now so supply ould stay buyers would be less... I'll agree that toilet paper and tampons may run out. Internet porn sites may go down for a while... We may be knocked back to like 1985 and have to watch TV again. Even a counter value strike would leave a workforce twice the size of post WWII Germany/Japan to rebuild. And they did. Maybe new cars would need carburates again instead of fuel injection chips.. But a RAND Corp study done during the '60 showed that USA could run just fine with 120 million people

[@johndavies5985]

@@patclark2186 I admire your optimism but I think you paint a rosy picture. Just watched a simulated attack on the US, very few areas left unscathed, Huge fallout spread resulting in contaminated farm land killing off most crops and livestock. Those reserves you mention would likely be targeted. Hope you are right though.

[@patclark2186]

@@johndavies5985 Thanks. If you are interested, the gold standard for a nuclear exchange was written by a man named Herman Kahn (AKA Dr. Strangelove) The book is "On Thermonuclear War". It's old but not dry reading. Its long but very informative. It's real knowledge, not a simulation, designed to entertain.

[@MsPysoul]

How the times have fucking changed that we worry again about nuclear war.

[@trevorsheldon-gaylor8083]

I live in the shadow of a main maintenance hub of the USAF. Sirens go off? Drive toward the base. At least it will be quick.

[@odakyuodakyu6650]

are you crazy? you actually want to die in the name of US hegemony?

[@trevorsheldon-gaylor8083]

@@odakyuodakyu6650 I would prefer not to; given that I live less than 30mi from a base likely to take several high yield warheads in the event of a nuclear war I'd rather be vaporised than die of radiation poisoning. It's fairly simple math.

[@graybeardsage]

"After a nuclear war the living will envy the dead." Nikita Khrushchev

[@useryggfdcc]

Very true words.

[@Nealikus]

So from what I gathered: 1) Don’t get nuked

[@TARDISver40]

Just hide in a refrigerator.

[@gastonpossel]

but they don't make'em like in Indy days anymore :(

[@christosvoskresye]

@@gastonpossel So hide in the microwave instead!

[@shawnmiller4781]

@@gastonpossel Yup, it was your grandmothers Norge that Indy hid in

[@KevinsArmory]

oven might work. just remember to turn off your gas line

[@pridefulobserver3807]

Meanwhile me living in Patagonia: "there was a nuclear war? gotta harvest my potatoes now"

[@amutah8063]

As a first responder, please don't call 911 in such an event bc we can do nothing for you.

[@DAndyLord]

In such an emergency how would I warn the authorities the "dam is about to fail" or some other extreme-emergency situation? Like, something that would need to be prioritized in an extreme emergency. Not small emergencies like everyone around me is grievously wounded and needs care.

[@rogersmith7396]

Its purely every man for them selves. No care what so ever.

[@shaunholt]

Go about 10 feet under ground and hang out. After a day, most radiation will be down to normal levels, but it could also take a few weeks to clear, just depends on the amount used in the bomb.

[@Conan-ny1um]

Lol regardless the world 🌎 would be doomed is this happens!

[@shaunholt]

@@Conan-ny1um Depends how many nukes are launched. 5? Beijing, New York, Moscow, Washington D.C., Los Angeles? World will recover. 100? Yeah, likely global mass extinction. Who knows? Maybe we'll live to see it.

[@sammiller6631]

@@Conan-ny1um the world would not be doomed. It had made it through worse.

[@briantuk3000]

The broblem of survival isn't the explosion themselves, but the aftermath

[@FinalFrontier101]

In nuclear war it's not guaranteed everyone would die, but guaranteed that everyone will suffer.

[@moistmike4150]

Binkov - Next video should be Cake vs. Pie. Which is greater?

[@stalkingtiger777]

Thanks for the video, it's rare to find someone go into such depth on this subject without just hyping everything up.

[@Chrischi3TutorialLPs]

For every nuclear warhead, there is a distance where a frozen pizza will be cooked to perfection.

[@Zampther]

its called the tasty zone

[@Dubanx]

I'd like to point out that surviving the direct nuclear explosions does not mean you survive the war. For example, what do you do when your running water no longer functions, your canned food stockpile is exhausted, and new food can't arrive in your city because every vehicle in the country was blown out by the EMPs. Even if you survive the blasts there's a really high chance you starve to death a week or two later. Lets say you do have an extended stockpile of food or are otherwise capable of staying fed for an extended period of time. What do you do when a hoard of heavily armed and utterly desperate people show up on your doorstep demanding it.

[@florinivan6907]

I think a far bigger risk is what will you do when extremists who would take power postwar suddenly declare you to be 'undesirable' for whatever made up reason. I don't fear starving survivors but I do fear radicalised cops who suddenly hate you because you represent the old world that burned in nuclear fire. And the new world demands that all the mistakes of the past be eliminated.

[@pbac9570]

1960s: Mutually assured destruction 2020s: it's not that bad actually

[@notfatigue3169]

People in 1950s: Mutually assured destruction People in 2020s: it wouldn't be that bad: No seriously go on Twitter, you'd be surprised how many don't understand the effects, they just think it would be like 9/11

[@christosvoskresye]

@@notfatigue3169 Don't ever go on Twitter.

[@notfatigue3169]

@@christosvoskresye Twitter is hell, a majority want a nuclear war, they're like 👍 I'm ready, I want one because I'm a pshycopath.

[@bluemarlin8138]

But there are a lot fewer nukes now than in the 1950s and 1960s (tens of thousands back then, but “only” about 5,000 strategic nukes each now), and most of them would be used on military targets with multiple warheads per target and some held in reserve. Also, the US and Russia “only” have about a third of the strategic nuke stockpile deployed on their missiles. So cities would be pretty far down the list of targets and most wouldn’t be hit, at least in a first strike. Of course it would be bad. Really bad. But it probably wouldn’t involve 25% of each country’s population being killed like it would have during the Cold War.

[@notfatigue3169]

@@bluemarlin8138 it would be bad, but not that bad. People on Twitter: 😀 see I told you soooooo. Loolllzzz

[@JabaBolotna]

It's clear, that a lot of people didn't get the point of the video. There are no reasons to bomb cities like NY or LA, almost every nuke will go to the military bases and facilities. Russia's deployed warheads (those actually ready to be launched) number about 1,588. And that's for THOUSANDS of military targets all over NATO(and China too, possibly). So even if you live near the military base, being 5 miles from the explosion, you have a decent chance to survive. And radiation almost completely disappears after 48 hours. That definitely does not look like Fallout or something. Not like hell, for sure. People who write that it will be the end of the world and no one survive, are the same people, who believe that steam from Nuclear Power Plant is harmful and contain radiation.

[@afiq2948]

what i can mention, it can lead to food crisis if a lot of nukes used, just like hypothetical if a lot of volcanoes erupted, definitely less sunlight can go through the atmosphere. I think its okay if they scale down the yields of nukes as long it will cause global food crisis/global famine. Well, i dont believe steam that been discharge by cooling tower at power plant (nuclear based) radioactive lol.

[@jameskastle599]

Exactly

[@realnapster1522]

Cities will be targeted as secondary target. As many labs and industrial facilities are in major cities. That’s the reason US gave for bombing Japanese cities.

[@sammiller6631]

@@afiq2948 You don't need nuclear war to have food crisis. That happens normally.

[@sammiller6631]

@@realnapster1522 Cities are a third or fourth target. industrial facilities come after military bases, but before targeting the population of cities.

[@stevendepuy4377]

According to the Army training I got in 76, dig a foxhole, pull a sheet of plywood over it with you inside. When debris stops falling, get out of the area quickly. Not sure how the plywood was gonna stay on when the blast wave hits. And they said if you on ground zero, you will never know what happened. Then again, they also told us in school to get under our desk seats.

[@83917Michael]

How fast can you dig a foxhole? Assuming you have advanced warning, seems it would make more sense to find a basement, sewer, or culvert and put as much earth between you and the expected target. A couple feet of dirt will stop most radiation, plywood not so much.

[@rogersmith7396]

Thats just so you can fight for another day before bleeding to death from massive cancers. You are expendable soldier boy.

[@jaffacalling53]

Getting under your desk shields you from a lot of debris and thermal radiation, it's not complete nonsense.

[@sammiller6631]

@@83917Michael the plywood keeps it from falling on your skin and clothes

[@EikoHolic]

That's a lot of damage!

[@midnightgt46]

most under rated comment

[@hilaryhongkong]

I'm more concerned that I may lose internet

[@sammiller6631]

Then get Starlink.

[@chitraprasannaanbalagan5626]

​@@sammiller6631EMP would have fried all our electronics

[@robertalaverdov8147]

Nuclear war casualty estimates: 5 to 7.5 billion. Quick summary: worldwide fallout, nuclear winter, breakdown of the food chain, mass extinction and possible extinction of the human species. Very long summary: Total nuclear exchange between belligerent powers could potentially involve in its entirety detonations in excess of 5k megatons (5 billion tons of TNT) over significant portions of the northern hemisphere. Initial death toll within 24 hours is estimated at 300-500 million with variances dependent on use of fallout shelters and evacuation procedures. Both atmospheric and surface level detonations are expected to produce a significant number of EMP (electromagnetic pulse) discharges at various ranges. These would render most electronic devices and power grids inoperable. This includes a majority of ground, aerial and marine transport. Follow on casualties from injuries such as severe burns, those trapped in collapsed buildings, patients with electronic medical devices such as pacemakers and others would account for a further 100-200 million deaths shortly thereafter. Past this point casualties would continue to increase as a further 400-700 million are expected to succumb to radiation poisoning and cancer in the proceeding weeks and months. A substantial number of these fatalities are expected outside the belligerent powers borders as radioactive particles are spread globally via atmospheric currents. The dispersion of radioactive material would mainly occur via a west to east wind-stream until forming a semi-uniform belt of particles primarily encircling the northern hemisphere from 30° to 60° latitude. Computer model predictions show lethal levels of atmospheric radiation lasting anywhere from a minimum of 3-5 years, upwards of 20-30 years in some scenarios. Secondarily a nuclear winter may result as a consequence of runaway firestorms in both urban and rural areas. The injection of smoke and soot, particularly black carbon entering the upper atmosphere from the burning of petroleum fuels and plastics in destroyed cities is expected to lower global temperatures between 11C to 22C (52F TO 72F) for a period of 2-3 years under optimistic projections. With some modeling showing global temperatures being partially affected for several decades. The result of this drastic temperature change is expected to deplete global agricultural yields in excess of 80-90%. Potentially causing a further 4-6 billion global fatalities due to starvation. With the casualty variation being highly dependent on proper use of food stocks and rationing from the remaining populace. Several studies have also posited that the layer of ozone in the stratosphere that shields living things from much of the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation might be severely damaged or depleted by large amounts of nitrogen oxides produced by thousands of congruent nuclear explosions. Even without a nuclear winter; the overwhelming majority of industrial fertilizer, artificial non pollinating seeds and agricultural equipment manufacturing that is responsible for the consequential increase in crop yields of the past century, is located within the belligerent countries territories. Studies estimating planetary carrying capacity using preindustrial agricultural practices provide a range of 600-800 million as being sustainable in terms of a global population. Unfortunately released data from declassified belligerent parties war plans cite the destruction of fertile agricultural regions as a priority. And with the majority of global arable farmland located within the targeted northern hemisphere, planetary carrying capacity would be significantly reduced. With some modeling predicting a meager 200-300 million as being sustainable afterwards. Additionally the majority of pharmaceutical manufacturing for both antivirals and antibiotics, along with medical equipment is produced by the belligerent countries. Loss of these facilities would compound the spread of disease along with subsequent conditions. Further adding to the substantial number of unpredictable fatalities. With the destruction of much of the northern hemisphere, global trade for all intents and purposes would cease to function. As all major air/sea ports, navigable rivers and rail/road ways within the belligerent states intersect continental economic zones that would now be impassable due to radioactive contamination and debris. Per UN food sustainability studies, between 58%-62% of countries are dependent on food imports. A further strain on food distribution would be the loss of major fuel refining facilities based within the belligerent countries. As 65% percent of refined fuels production originates from the belligerent nations. Fuel shortages would compound already strained food stocks, leading to a potential breakdown in local supply chains. Even within countries classified as food sustainable estimates put 70%-74% of populations further than 200km (a weeks travel by horse-cart) of their respective agricultural regions. As most produce is perishable within a few days without refrigeration this would create a hunger crisis for isolated population centers. In addition ocean fauna would also be dangerous to consume as rain/snow runoff funnels radioactive material along with debris containing large concentrations of lead and other heavy elements from destroyed cities and factories into coastal waters. Under these conditions remaining governments would face a monumental task in attempting to maintain law and order. Possibly resulting in the breakdown of civil society and extreme lawlessness across the globe. Rate of homicides from confrontations over dwindling resources during this period can't be calculated with certainty but expected to be significant. Furthermore acts of cannibalism have been documented during prior historical crisis events involving food shortages and thus would undoubtably occur. It is outside the scope of this report to predict a time frame for the reemergence of organized civil society and or a return to stable population capacity. Lastly even survivors who may have been fortunate enough to escape the destruction in underground bunkers will face extreme difficulty upon emerging onto the surface. As once food stocks are depleted they will have to grow crops in irradiated soil and likely without pollination. Most organic crops such as wheat, barley, corn, fruit and nut trees, etc., all require bee pollination. Bees have a particular sensory modality allowing them to detect electric fields. And thus they are especially susceptible to large amounts of electromagnetic radiation. The drastic temperature changes along with surface radiation may render them and most terrestrial animals extinct. Along with a significant portion of marine life. Final estimate for a total nuclear exchange is between 5 to 7.5 billion casualties. With a moderate chance of complete human extinction. A strange game, the only winning move is not to play. -Joshua

[@davidkruse3424]

And Putin threatens us everyone dies

[@seanbumstead1250]

The human race would survive but at significant reduced levels mostly in the southern hemisphere

[@jesperlykkeberg7438]

"A strange game, the only winning move is not to play" This is why Scandinavia will win any nuclear war. Scandinavia is a so called "nuclear free zone". Nuclear weapons quite literally seize to exist as soon as the enter Scandinavia.

[@paulpowell4871]

Always a great time with Binkov!

[@NeverlostatBSgaming]

Just head to the Winchester and wait for it all to blow over

[@pstrap1311]

This is a non zero percent portion of the reason I live in rural Alaska. County boy can survive! Lol

[@Barwasser]

But at what cost?! At what cost...

[@nigeldeforrest-pearce8084]

Excellent and Useful Analysis!!!

[@DemonetisedZone]

There is a small canal 50 yards from my front door That's where I'd go and submerge myself if i had a couple of minutes warning

[@ausenciomartinez-olvidares1294]

Thanks Binkov this really made me feel better

[@steveofthewildnorth7493]

You may survive a nuclear strike on your city, but the real question is, do you want to? As a child of the Cold War, my answer has always been....no.

[@KyleLi]

When he put up a map of New York City and I lived smack in the middle of his fireball… I knew it was all over for me already :(

[@JayJay-gk6cr]

The nuclear winter will kill off the survivors after the initial blast. I’d prefer to just die quickly than freeze whilst looking for scraps of gone off meat or to slowly die puking my guts out from radiation lol

[@User-jr7vf]

Countries which are self sustainable and not near the US or Russia would be ok for a considerable amount of time. No heatstorms, no collapsed buildings and no chaos in the healthcare system. However in the long term we will suffer from the economic crisis which would follow the war and also possibly widespread nuclear fallout, crippling crops and causing famine, diseases and death (this still not taking into account the nuclear winter).

[@robdee81]

Thats why its sensible to prep for such a dissaster.

[@harrisonvictor3203]

You guys do know that nuclear winter is an outdated theory right? It would be impossible to create a nuclear winter even in the worst case scenario of 12000 warheads being used. I’m not going to write an essay on why it’s impossible.. but if you’re interested, you guys can go check out the most recent data from reputable scientific research.

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

@@User-jr7vf Most countries are dependent on the international market to survive.

[@richardkammerer2814]

Might as well climb to the top of the house with a martini and cigar and aim the arse in the general direction of the blast.

[@usonumabeach300]

I live basically dead in the middle between Pensacola (west of me) and Fort Walton Beach(east of me). Pensacola NAS(west of Pensacola) would be a massive target, as would Eglin AFB(north of FWB). Both bases have smaller satellite bases that are quite a bit closer to where I live and work Whiting Field and Hurlburt (home of the AC130 and a lot of USAF special forces). An hour west of Pensacola is Mobile, Alabama, which is not only a major hub for shipping, it's also where many naval ships are made. Being this close to the Gulf of Mexico, I wouldn't be surprised if hostile submarines would be able to get close enough to strike basically without warning. About an hour east of FWB is a base that is home to F22's. This area I live in has the highest density of military veterans in the US... I wouldn't say we'd be first on the list, but likely top 10 or close to it. But I think I live far enough away that we would be untouched by a discriminate strike. That said, we'd basically be cut off from the rest of the country by land, and life could get uncomfortable really quickly. I grew up in Abilene, Tx, which I believe was 7th on the list back during the cold war because it was the main home of the B1's back when they were still nuclear capable, and I probably lived within 5 miles or so of the runways on Dyess AFB.

[@christosvoskresye]

You are way outside the IMMEDIATE risk zone. Fallout and the general collapse of civilization would be your worries. By the way, I'm from Port St. Joe, and I grew up about 10 miles from Tyndall AFB as the crow flies. I'd love to get back to that part of the world, but right now I live in Huntington, WV, for job reasons. Unless Putin's seen WE ARE MARSHALL, I don't think he knows Huntington exists.

[@walterblack7233]

Jesus you are literally the Chosen one for nuclear warheads

[@johndavies5985]

Good luck.

[@zmanhuber6924]

Excellent analysis!

[@doctyler5382]

I live 5 miles from the White House... I'm gonna say "Nope!" 🤯

[@rnsc8342]

Strategic Nuclear warhesds yields are now smaller than in cold war. Theres fewer warheads, but still thousands . They may be more intended for airburst which has an impact on fallout . But modern society is more dependant on electronics. And electronics require sources of electricity. Electricity and oil products now come down wires and pipes from fewer remoter power plants and gas supplies. Food is usually produced in distant factories and much is imported -food is no longer mostly bought from local bakers or butchers and local abbatoirs -supplies would need to be moved along damaged communication routes and made using no longer available energy.. Add on the lack of any remaining civil defence system or food stocks in most countries , and you have a system where the initial attack may be a less damaging. But the ability to survive may be as bad or worse?

[@e.vi3]

Southern Hemisphere : “Omg chill up there what is your deal, I’m trying to sleep”

[@juancho1663]

Due to nuclear winter, every single population of the planet will dissapear eventually

[@indianastan]

Only two types of people would be left Those that are Dead and Those who wish they were.

[@Alorand]

I'm surprised that you didn't mention the Beirut Lebanon explosion. It might have been small compared to a nuke, but the pressure wave hitting concrete and glass buildings was much closer than Hiroshima with mainly wooden buildings.

[@patclark2186]

Well said!!

[@trollmcclure1884]

it was epic but only 1.1 kiloton. 100 or 400 kt would not be such a fun.

[@Alorand]

@@trollmcclure1884 But you can find equivalent points. So the radius of the circle of destruction for a nuke would be greater, but for the effects of the pressure wave you can extrapolate from a building that was much closer to the center of the explosion.

[@jesperlykkeberg7438]

The best possible place to be during a nuclear attack is obviously in a nuclear free zone. It´s a proven fact that nuclear weapons quite literally seize to exist as soon as they enter nuclear free zones. This happened the only time a nuclear armed US B-52 bomber entered Danish territory. It literally disappeared.

[@garethmartin6522]

I did a crude version of this calculation in the mid-80's, with much less information available. I used a 2 megaton warhead, and although I can't remember the distance, I do recall that this worked out as inflicting third degree burns on exposed skin, knocking over cars and breaking windows. Developing a nuclear war survival plan was a fairly common kids game in those days. However, the idea of nukes killing everyone was not based on the blast effects, but the ensuing nuclear winter and the collapse of supply chains.

[@sammiller6631]

nuclear winter is questionable

[@garethmartin6522]

@@sammiller6631 It likely wouldn't be as bad as we first feared. But the phenomenon is well understood and there will be some of it.

[@garethmartin6522]

@@florinivan6907 YEs lots of this has been explored in post-Apoc fiction. But you are still dismissing the nukes to cavalierly.

[@garethmartin6522]

@@florinivan6907 You still seem to be assuming that the US would be a good deal more intact than it would be. Europe would not "revert" to Nazism, but to hunter-gathering. (Fascism is not some sort of "European" thing anyway, as seen in the US today. It is simply capitalism in decay.)

[@garethmartin6522]

@@florinivan6907 As a Cold War kid who spent a lot of time on this topic, I still think you are grossly under-estimating the destruction. I can't see Homeland Security being at all significant when there is no homeland any more. There isn't going to be any president at all, there isn't going to be any country, because communication is going to be largely limited to couriers. The DHS is also going to be seen as part of the system that caused the war and will have zero credibility or legitimacy. With the destruction of major cities, all production of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and no doubt a bunch of other stuff, will all come to end probably for at least a couple of decades, and possibly more than a century. I would encourage you to read 'A Canticle for Liebowitz' by Walter M. Miller Jr., which was the book that kicked off the Post-Apoc genre.

[@jwrappuhn71]

Excellent vid.

[@nottoday9282]

Fun Blue Puppet Binkov: the living will envy the dead.

[@alphawoolf5981]

I don't want to survive. I'm going outside and getting a tan.

[@JustChillingNahhhhMean]

With marshmallows?

[@cs0345]

I want to survive because I'm a Fallout/Metro fan and I want the real life experience

[@sammiller6631]

@@cs0345 Fallout/Metro is not real life. Real life is much much much more boring. If you want, you could move to Ukraine for the experience.

[@cs0345]

@@sammiller6631 I was making a joke

[@sammiller6631]

@@cs0345 Jokes need to be funny.

[@thseed7]

Wouldn't we all just prefer to die of old age in a peaceful world? Nuclear war seems like a stupid way to go if we're choosing.

[@winstonsmith1222]

go tell that to Putin

[@fizkallnyeilsem]

Not orc lord Putin, seems like a fun way to say good bye, if Soviet Union Dream doesnt return

[@robertmiranda2444]

Now this is a video I can get behind, those decrying end of the world every time nuclear war is mentioned get ony nerves.

[@darkjill2007]

Thats a way more postive outlook than most of the aftermath predictions that I've heard.

[@christosvoskresye]

IMMEDIATE aftermath. Less than that precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[@Mercer2024]

In nuclear war, we are all cremated equal.

[@christosvoskresye]

Thank you for acting as an example of THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE OF THIS VIDEO.

[@fizkallnyeilsem]

Not ifi hide in refrigerator

[@josephfox9221]

I should be fine. Some major company called vaulttech or something built a bunker near me

[@minimalmo]

Wow, you are so lucky. I bet that you are absolutely safe in their vaults, nothing to worry about. 😅

[@2SSSR2]

Good video, we will need it for the next month or two. :)

[@robdee81]

Simple things i was taught during NBC training in the infantry can dramatically increase your survival, i remember being taught to lay down in a depression facing away from blast. I guess this protects you from pressure wave. Obviously this is only working if youre not directly under the blast and are some distance away..

[@libertyjones1451]

Always change your socks after exposure to nuclear blasts as well.

[@christosvoskresye]

Always carry a lead parasol, just in case.

[@mikepalmer2219]

I would rather die in the initial blast. I would hate dealing with the aftermath.

[@GeoScorpion]

Yup. Definitely going out for a beer, now.

[@DemonetisedZone]

Damn that media for it's defeatest attitude to being nuked🙄

[@Raycheetah]

In the '70s, a list was released of Soviet primary, secondary, and tertiary targets for nuclear attack against the US (being the waves in which attacks would be launched, assuming attack capability persisted). At least one small, Southern town was on the tertiary list, due to it being home to a major textile production industry. Not so sure what the Targeting priorities would be today, but that little town should no longer be on the list, having lost its business to... China. =9[.]9=

[@blackbird_actual]

Do you know where one could find this list? I've seen a list of USAF targets in the USSR from the 50s, but never a list of targets the Soviets would strike(outside of the obvious major military/population sites if course).

[@Raycheetah]

@@blackbird_actual I saw it in a book titled, "Life After Doomsday," by Bruce D. Clayton, PhD. In spite of being quite dated, it's still a great reference manual for nuclear war and how to survive the aftermath. Used copies are out there, easy to find with a simple search of title and author. =^[.]^=

[@rogersmith7396]

Goodbye Porto Rico.

[@adamperdue3178]

I live in a small town of 2,000 people that's on the list. It's a town in a valley where there's a critical railroad chokepoint which made it a strategic target back in the 70s, I'm hoping the Russians have updated their targeting list to see that said railroad only sees a small fraction of freight moving through now that it did back then.

[@markmitchell457]

I live in San Diego. Multiple Surface Navy bases, sub base. SEAL base. Marine's west coast base just up I-5, North Island Naval air base...... I'll be lucky if I see the flash before I'm reduced to atoms.

[@casbot71]

This is why living near a famous landmark is a issue. I've seen a Alien Mothership crash on my place in _Independence Day,_ a Kaiju take out my city, and it was even totalled in Halo. So rule #1 stay away from landmarks, rule#2 is military installations.

[@sheldoniusRex]

As long as someone takes out San Francisco we're all good. Actually, get Jerusalem, Mecca, and the Vatican too. Then we'll be all good.

[@jameslyddall]

If anyone hasn’t check out the bbc docudrama called Threads. It’s a little dated but is incredibly powerful about how much a nuclear war would suck.

[@myplane150]

Everyone may not die but, everyone would certainly lose...☺

[@patclark2186]

True..just like every war ever fought .. everyone would lose

[@KevinsArmory]

you kidding? people have been jacking off about great reset this and rapture that since religion was invented. world leaders already have bunkers for the occasion. There will be "winners" but their parameters for winning probably dont resemble ours.

[@AdamSmith-gs2dv]

Best protection from a nuke: living in a rural area far away from cities and military targets

[@DanielBrown-sn9op]

Why would you want to survive? Imagine life afterwards.

[@ale_s45]

very good analysis

[@jesperlykkeberg7438]

Pure science fiction.

[@1977Yakko]

The lucky ones died first.

[@Hortifox_the_gardener]

The question is not "can you" but rather "do you want to survive?"

[@shibiwowsawesomegaming4783]

I don't see who or why anyone would want to try and survive a nuclear war. I'd rather be within the target. A microsecond of white light and your instantly vaporized. No pain, no suffering, no radiation sickness. It would be over in an instant.

[@xisotopex]

if you were in a subway in the US, dont stay on the platform, move as far up the actual tunnel itself, you know where its dark and the rats live. that will put you further away from damage.. and of course after this calms down, you probably need to try to stay away from people! that is where most of the danger comes from....

[@ChilapaOfTheAmazons]

Make sure to always have food at home that you can eat without gas or electricity to cook it.

[@aitorbleda8267]

i have food & water for 15 days plus whatever normal supplies I have. you never know!

[@rogersmith7396]

For years and years.

[@rogersmith7396]

@@aitorbleda8267 So you will last two weeks longer than others then die.

[@snakeace0]

@@rogersmith7396 What are you talking about?! All that is needed is water and food for 2 weeks. And if were being specific, then water for 2 weeks would be enough since we can do fine without food for 2 weeks. Iodine solutions or tablets would be good to have. In fact you could leave shelter in as soon as 2 days, since the vast majority of the radioactive particles would be way past their halftime at that point. Literally all food reserves would be good to eat. People like you mistake "irradiated" for "radioactive". Any non metabolising substance that doesnt metabolise or ingest radioactive particles would only be irradiated and completely safe to eat. Just wash the package with water and youre good to go. All people would have to do to farm again , would be to remove the first layer of top soil ( around 30 cm) in areas where fallout is likely. Most fish would be safe to eat using a geiger counter to be sure.

[@imjashingyou3461]

Honestly after talking with several people familiar with planning for the aftermath during the course of my job. The whole societal collapse into mad max shit is more a fiction of Hollywood then a plausible reality. However depending upon how many major transportation junctions are destroyed and foodstuffs warehouses are affected may make small to large scale starvation a thing for 1 to 2 years before farming recovers. An additude less of everyman for themselves as in Hollywood, and more a community helping each other and sharing would mitigate this quite a bit. A lot of the nuclear winter type effects would be over with within 6 months to 2 years depending upon the firestorm issues. Nucs are so much more efficient in terms of employment, airburst use, and radioactive material use that fallout would be more an immediate function then a lasting issue. People imagine chernobyl everywhere but that's not really possible. There might be some areas that are a no go for a while but, that's the exception. And not mutated life everywhere either. It's kinda a myth if people are just willing to ride it out and not off themselves and help neighbors instead of hording that a full nuclear exchange is a end of mankind scenario. We might loose 60% of the population in 5 years when the weather and effects "are back to normal", and it might take another 0 to 20 years to get major transportation links back to normal to resume normal trade and food distribution fully but that is still almost 3 billion people or a 1960s like population and not a collapsed society or a dead planet.

[@rogersmith7396]

The military will degrade into warlords. Their only goal will be to feed themselves. They will kill anyone who gets in their way and ransack everything.

[@snakeace0]

All the estimations i saw never went above 400 million dead within the first 2 waves of strikes. They added a possible 1-2 billion dying in the aftermath. I also dont know where people draw their conclusions that Earth would be a wasteland. Humanity had Supervulcano events in its history, with several times the destructive power of a nuclear war scenario. If Yellowstone would erupt, then it would be multiple times that. We also know for a fact that the swiss have more space in their atomic bunkers, than they have people. So they will most definitely survive. JUst like most people in the southern hemisphere.

[@johndavies5985]

Well that cheered me up no end.

[@bob_stackin]

I appreciate the “Good luck” man, right back at ya 😅

[@reasonitician]

Not New York! That's where I keep all my stuff

[@surg9029]

A 50% full thickness burn is frequently lethal even in a burn center, but in a war much smaller burns will also be lethal from lack of specialized burn care. Hospitals will be overwhelmed, doctors and specialists limited, and medical supplies very in very short supply. Triage will dictate who is treated first based on resource availability and likelihood of survival. Expect care to be delivered in subways and other non traditional settings as hospitals may be destroyed above ground.

[@patmccall4647]

Yep. With no medical care, even a normally small nick can be fatal if not kept clean.

[@casinodelonge]

Looking at Nukemaps gives a very sensible perspective on this issue, look and learn.

[@droach5241]

Extremely educational video

[@reggiep75]

I remember watching 'Threads' at 9 years old. Scared the living s**t out me and brought the fear of the Cold War to the forefront of my young and troubled mind. As an adult, it seems a completely different experience but the deterioration of society, long after the drop of the bombs, is as almost as threatening as the drop of the bombs. Might be a completely different viewing experience for someone who didn't experience the Cold War but still watch it if you haven't already seen it.

[@johndavies5985]

Same for me too, found it traumatic viewing and left me fearful for many years. Eventually learned to relax but now it has come back to haunt me.

[@paulo6069]

I wonder if raid shadow legends will sponsor the nuclear war

[@fnfdmgjfndf]

I'd be more surprised if they didn't

[@Michael18599]

Good to know especially in times like this.

[@oXogon80]

The only way to get to play Fallout 5

[@kabylejesus8017]

fake ! I can just hide under my table to survive ( source : My school )

[@therocinante3443]

Dang you're an old timer!

[@shepherdlavellen3301]

was that actually how kids taught during cold war?

[@richardkammerer2814]

We were instructed to proceed to certain areas inside the school, scrunch up and place our hands over our necks to shield vital areas from the shards of glass and whatnot.

[@christosvoskresye]

Let's see: Assuming you're not in the initial fireball, your most immediate risk will be the radiation. The walls of your school might protect you from most of that -- at least unless you have large windows facing the blast. Then comes the over-pressure, which causes buildings to collapse. Assuming you are far enough away that only a partial collapse occurs, maybe hiding under a table is a good idea. Making fun of this is like making fun of people moving to the center of their homes when a tornado is about to hit. The center of your house will not protect you from an F5, but it might well protect you against an F0, F1, or F2. Just because it does not work in every possible circumstance doesn't mean it is useless advice.

[@chmeee9562]

True, hiding under a table would do nothing if you are too close to the blast, however, if you are farther away the school might still be damaged by the pressure wave, which means flying glass, partially collapsed roofs, flying debris. So hiding under a table is actually good advice.

[@insaneadventures4391]

If I'm understanding this right, nuclear wars are more survivable than originally thought.

[@Andychiu845]

Nuclear war was never about the blast, it is what came afer

[@captainbroady]

@@Andychiu845 to be honest, nuclear warheads today are pretty small compared to back in the old days. Also, nuclear winter is a just a theory. If there's an all-out nuclear war, I doubt nuclear winter will take place all over the world. There will most likely be large places like Asia or Oceania that won't be affected by the nuclear winter and the nukes. But, that would mean widespread starvation and loss in power since supply lines would be completely destroyed.

[@mockingbird_redacted]

He was showing you a 450 kilotons bomb. Look up megatons. This is not a good video because we have 15 megaton on the ready

[@captainbroady]

@@tripplefives1402 yep exactly my point. Also, nuclear winter is just a theory. It hasn't been scientifically proven. And even if it is real, blowing up all nukes in the world today won't lead to global nuclear winter

[@sammiller6631]

@@mockingbird_redacted No, 15 megatons are wasteful, so they are few in number compared to 450 kilotons bomb.

[@seancarroll9849]

This is why I go by the DEFCON model of how nuclear war may go. Everyone loses, but someone loses the least. That scary thought is why we still think in MAD terms, and why it won't happen. Or at least we hope it won't happen. We need to trust that people are intelligent, sane actors.

[@nerofiddles8798]

Practical information given that our world's leaders seem to be itching for a fight right now.

[@jameslewis2635]

If nukes start flying in the skies over your city, just remember the following phrase: War... War never changes...

[@seamusoreilly804]

If the Russian nukes work as well as the rest of their military, we might have just a tiny chance.

[@scaryclouds1403]

Russia has 6000 nukes, lets say that 99% dont hit their target due to internal failure/intercepted/etc, that still leaves 60 nukes wiping major population centers.

[@Ideo7Z]

The debris and rubble would just add class to the homeless encampments around Portland, Tacoma and Seattle

[@julianshepherd2038]

Americans hate Americans and people.

[@whocares5432]

You have whole encampments of homeless people?!

[@dannyferguson9415]

Thank you Binkov for addressing this critical issue. Daniel Ellsberg's "The Dooms day Machine" addresses the danger of Nuclear Winter.

[@janlaan9602]

Also see the kurzgezagt video on what happens when a city gets nuked. It's true nightmare fuel. Nobody can come to save you in the aftermath

[@christosvoskresye]

Or just the nuke scene from Terminator 2: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpvEpX1pa8h9rK8.

[@yourstruly4817]

He doesn't tell what yield though

[@JustChillingNahhhhMean]

Radiation worries me more than the explosion

[@Valorius]

Most people refuse to believe you can prepare and survive.

[@Szycha8412]

Good clip :)

[@user-qd3lc7zb6n]

You will be stuck with me in the future General

[@FATMAN_tactical]

Cause I got spurs that jingle, jangle, jingle

[@alenreyvon3428]

I may not know what to do during the blasts but I do know what do in the new atomic age thanks to Fallout, Metro and stalker.

[@54032Zepol]

Houston has gaint freaking laser beams that could shoot em nukes down in space

[@user-us4hl3zr2b]

Does houston laser beams maneuverable? cause Hypersonic nuke is not something u can avoid or counter within seconds of time