Nuclear war real or not?

[Splash_King]

Too many variables... At this point there's no telling what could happen.

Aside from all the death, indeed.

I only understand points supported by actual facts.

I could say the same thing to you.

You're focused that gangs have power through drug trade. No, they have power through weapons. Yes, they won't be selling drugs in an apocalypse because there'd obviously be no demand for them, but that's got nothin' to do with my point. You know that every drug circle has a shitton of weapons, yes?

When chaos and death is abundant, weapons are going to be power. There won't be a government that'l be able to stop a few thousand people with guns in hand anymore. I believe power is all you'd need for a real apocalyptic situation to get what you want, and the power to end many people's lives from a distance via firepower certainly qualifies as power, particularly when gangs have guns en masse. There won't be civilian groups with enough firepower to stand up to them either; except Texas.

If that still somehow escapes you, in the most simplified statement possible; drug money doesn't matter when you already have a million weapons.

 

[WiiAssasin]

If that still somehow escapes you, in the most simplified statement possible; drug money doesn't matter when you already have a million weapons.

And how will they have weapons? Cities went boom, remember? If gangs somehow found weapons, the military and public has access to them as well.
Vigilante groups are formed.

 

[Splash_King]

We don't know every place where gangs store their weaponry (aside from on themselves, which is more than enough to support my point), otherwise they'd be assed out of fire power right about now.

Also remember the mindsets of panic-laden civilians compared to sociopaths and bloodthirsty criminals; the latter is gonna adapt quicker to an apocalypse and loot/obtain everything they'd need while they've got the chance. Particularly since gangs are gonna know where they kept their weapons; if they're still in tact, gangs will be the first to get 'em obviously.

 

[WiiAssasin]

We don't know every place where gangs store their weaponry (aside from on themselves, which is more than enough to support my point), otherwise they'd be assed out of fire power right about now.

Also remember the mindsets of panic-laden civilians compared to sociopaths and bloodthirsty criminals; the latter is gonna adapt quicker to an apocalypse andloot/obtain everything they'd need while they've got the chance. Particularly since gangs are gonna know where they kept their weapons; if they're still in tact, gangs will be the first to get 'em obviously.

Too bad your theory has no facts to back it up.

If you recall your history lessons, humanity has the unstoppable urge to rebuild itself after disasters. Take Hiroshima for example: After being nuked, crime did not take over. No, criminals fled to find better places to survive.
Is Hiroshima a poor gang-infested place today? No it is not.

 

[ff6rDOMA]

But, didn´t Hiroshima had an actual goverment support to it´s rebuild?, too much diference with the apocalipsis scenario you are arguing, I also believe gangs would be in charge, but there´s so many variables.

 

[WiiAssasin]

But, didn´t Hiroshima had an actual goverment support to it´s rebuild?, too much diference with the apocalipsis scenario you are arguing, I also believe gangs would be in charge, but there´s so many variables.

A nuclear apocalypse doesn't mean there's no government, it just means it's weakened.
Happened back then, it can happen later.

 

[Splash_King]

A nuclear apocalypse doesn't mean there's no government, it just means it's weakened.

It goes to far beyond weakened. Hiroshima was a city; an apocalypse is the entire world. Nuking an important territory to a government and nuking the entire country a government controls are two different things.

There are variables that support your theory of civilians being able to hold their own, Japan has proved that time and again with all the disasters going on. At the same time, Japan isn't exactly known for it's gang violence and powerful drug circles. Anywhere that supplies and life necessities are more scarce than normal (countries with high poverty and thus, crime rates before and after a nuclear apocalypse), you won't see as much unity, and instead more chaos and "finders keepers".

Too bad your theory has no facts to back it up.

Nor yours. We're both speculating here. Unless we've had a worldwide apocalypse in the modern world I somehow missed, of course.

 

[WiiAssasin]

Nor yours. We're both speculating here. Unless we've had a worldwide apocalypse in the modern world I somehow missed, of course.

On the contrary. The bombs over Japan is the closest model of a nuclear apocalypse.
Think about it: The world. At war.
Supplies are low, everyone is saving food and materials. Countries unite and divide. Weapons are being held in top priority as well.
Then there are gangs. Tell me, did we ever worry about gang violence during this turbulent time?

 

[Splash_King]

The closest example to something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good example to argue with.

I'll say it again: an important city falling under nuclear destruction isn't comparable to the entire world falling under nuclear destruction.

 

[WiiAssasin]

The closest example to something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good example to argue with.

I'll say it again: an important city falling under nuclear destruction isn't comparable to the entire world falling under nuclear destruction.

I like how you avoid my questions.
You know what isn't a good example? Those hollywood movies you're getting the gang-ruled apocalypse theory from.
My prediction, however, is backed up by every civilization that's faced a catastrophe.

 

[Splash_King]

I like how you avoid my questions.

OHOH! I could say the same to you on many occasions, my good sir.

I also thought that gang violence question was rhetorical.

You know what isn't a good example? Those hollywood movies you're getting the gang-ruled apocalypse theory from.
My prediction, however, is backed up by every civilization that's faced a catastrophe.

I've said it many a time when you weren't an active member, so I don't blame you for not knowing I hate movies with a passion; 'cept classics. And I hardly deem B-list apocalypse movies as classics. I base what I'm saying on what I know of the human psyche of civilians, criminals, and of course, speculation as a whole.

Your prediction is "backed up" by disasters that happened in a time far too different from the modern day, and/or catastrophes that don't hold a candle to nuking the entire world. I would say the only one you could barely compare in terms of the scale would be the bubonic plague, but those have nothing in common other than a huge amount of deaths.

Oh, and the Holocaust too, but it's pretty hard to compare massive genocide in pseudo-secrecy to blatant nuclear world's end in anything else but, again, death count.

 

[WiiAssasin]

Your prediction is "backed up" by disasters that happened in a time far too different from the modern day, and/or catastrophes that don't hold a candle to nuking the entire world. I would say the only one you could barely compare in terms of the scale would be the bubonic plague, but those have nothing in common other than a huge amount of deaths.

Oh, and the Holocaust too, but it's pretty hard to compare massive genocide in pseudo-secrecy to blatant nuclear world's end in anything else but, again, death count.

World wide death = reduced population.
Gangs only thrive when there is a high population in places such as cities or high drug usage.
Therefore: Reduced population = Less gang activity.

You're argument is invalid.

 

[Splash_King]

Gangs only thrive when there is a high population in places such as cities or high drug usage.
Therefore: Reduced population = Less gang activity.

Gangs "thrive" in cities with high population density because that's where they get their money from. I've already said money is invalid since they already have all the weapons they need once an apocalypse starts. It's not hard for them to turn to a slash 'n burn strategy with all the weaponry they have either, pillaging as they move from place to place. Your argument is invalid since you're implying gangs are parasites that simply can't exist without a city to feed off of.

 

[WiiAssasin]

Gangs "thrive" in cities with high population density because that's where they get their money from. I've already said money is invalid since they already have all the weapons they need once an apocalypse starts. It's not hard for them to turn to a slash 'n burn strategy with all the weaponry they have either, pillaging as they move from place to place. Your argument is invalid since you're implying gangs are parasites that simply can't exist without a city to feed off of.

And these weapons you speak of. I'm sure you know where they came from? The gov.

A slash and burn strategy.... yes, it makes perfect sense that they burn their potential main source of food!

 

[Splash_King]

And these weapons you speak of. I'm sure you know where they came from? The gov.

Doesn't matter where weapons come from if they already have them. You should stop beating around the bush with these dull points; or, come up with better ones if they aren't unintentional time wasters.

A slash and burn strategy.... yes, it makes perfect sense that they burn their potential main source of food!

A fool's grain of salt is the expression taken literally.