Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This film was made in 1984. It takes place in Sheffield, England.
The entire film sometimes shows up on YouTube.
Those of you smuggies who think your Montana dugout will see you through are sadly mistaken.
There was an enemy capable of mounting nuclear war in 1984; there is none today.
There is, however, the possibility of germ warfare. Winston Churchill, a virulent Germanophobe, wished to use anthrax in Europe during World War II. He reluctantly desisted when scientists introduced anthrax on a small island which resulted in utter destruction of life. The island is still uninhabitable today. Even an outbreak of anthrax would run its course although the devastation could be horrendous. The best policy for the prudent is to locate in a sparsely populated area. While it may not be a refuge from anything that the mind can conceive, it is almost a certain refuge from any likely event.
If an individual can remain alive on previously stored food while others have none, a month should be adequate as people who are actually starving will either be dead or too weak and lethargic to cause problems at the end of that time. I emphasize ''stored food'' because crops, large and small, will be subject either from theft or wanton destruction very quickly. The Great Chicago Fire provides well-documented evidence that during periods of disastrous events many people will voluntarily work to create even greater destruction.
I remember watching "threads." I thought it truly was one of the most accurate and dismal portrayals of how a nuclear attack may play out. As a member of the "duck and cover" generation it occurs to me odd that anyone was allowed to air it. We usually got such optimistic information about how everything could be handled by the same government that would lead us into it.
I do remember one haunting phrase from the 50s/60s nuclear fears that still pops into my mind now and then when I think of the collapse of civilization by any means - "The survivors will come to envy the dead."
There's so much more to think about than just the physical implications.
So the justification for dropping a nuclear warhead becomes starting forest fires in the hope that forest fires will make smoke and choke out people hiding in bunkers?
Wouldn't a lit match do the same?
When you have thousands, you can spare one or two.
1984 saw the nuclear attack movies, Threads, The Day After and Testament. All three difficult to watch.
The Day After was responsible for nuclear disarmament. Ronald Reagan was as affected by the movie as the rest of us and decided to work out a way to make sure it didn't come true.
When you have thousands, you can spare one or two.
There exist 'hardened' targets designed in a manner that they may require multiple direct hits before they crack open. Nations put their most highly prized assets in these hardened sites.
Otherwise the list of possible targets is very large. Depending on what theories you set. The big fear that is being played to in these style of movies is the bombing of population centers. They are easy to film, lots of people running and screaming, with little actual content and nothing educational or thought provoking.
If you focus on power, transportation and logistics; leaving the cities un-harmed than each individual warhead will kill fewer people. But the overall effect is one that kills more people. Using warheads to start a few forest fires, seems very wasteful to me.
When I first deployed with the fleet, there was a lot of talk about fake payloads. These are payloads used to attract enemy missile defense assets [surface-to-air missiles designed to counter ballistic missiles]. Get the enemy to expend their ammo shooting down fakes, so by the second or third wave of ballistic missiles, the enemy has ran out of ammo and can no longer shoot down incoming missiles. [when I say ammo in this context, I mean missile defense systems that cost nearly as much to build / maintain as the nuclear missiles cost]. A wave of missiles that drops chocolate candy bars, a wave that drops nylon pantyhose. Only after the children have been drawn out into the streets chasing candy bars, and the women have been drawn out chasing after pantyhose, then send in the real warheads.
The entire film sometimes shows up on YouTube.
Those of you smuggies who think your Montana dugout will see you through are sadly mistaken.
Bit ironic that you are using the term smug in a post like that.
What kind of point are you attempting to make? People that prepare for disasters are dumb because you watched a fictional movie? There is that irony again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.