Nuclear war real or not?

[The_Man]

Clap on the back for writing this much

 

[WiiAssasin]

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.

Obviously they'll have weapons.
The important point is: Who else will have weapons? Who else has better military experience that is actually part of the national military that will enforce order?

 

[Splash_King]

Clap on the back for writing this much

You ain't know me long enough, bro. :lol:

Obviously they'll have weapons.
The important point is: Who else will have weapons? Who else has better military experience that is actually part of the national military that will enforce order?

Which brings me back to my point that the military will either be selectively protecting their own kin and officials, as well as the more important fact that military bases and such will definitely be targeted by the nukes. Many militia will be dead, and if they'l be alive they might be weaponless and especially left without communication. In this situation, I fear a nation of criminals' numbers and average weaponry isn't going to be stopped by a military force(s) on the defensive. What military force a country will have left is gonna guard areas to make safe havens; if they exist anymore. They can't run about stopping crime and spreading thin their already decimated troops.

In this retrospect, since the top dogs of all countries are doing nothing but bunking down and protecting themselves, gangs are free to do what they want (except in Texas), if those countries have gangs.

 

[WiiAssasin]

Which brings me back to my point that the military will either be selectively protecting their own kin and officials, as well as the more important fact that military bases and such will definitely be targeted by the nukes. Many militia will be dead, and if they'l be alive they might be weaponless and especially left without communication. In this situation, I fear a nation of criminals' numbers and average weaponry isn't going to be stopped by a military force(s) on the defensive. What military force a country will have left is gonna guard areas to make safe havens; if they exist anymore. They can't run about stopping crime and spreading thin their already decimated troops.

In this retrospect, since the top dogs of all countries are doing nothing but bunking down and protecting themselves, gangs are free to do what they want (except in Texas), if those countries have gangs.

Then tell, what is so important to guard that the protectors of nations refuse to do their job?

And what about the general public?

 

[Splash_King]

Then tell, what is so important to guard that the protectors of nations refuse to do their job?

And what about the general public?

"**** the general public" is going to be the opinion of 99% of all the worthless politicians we've got, IMO. They'l change the job of the military from protecting the country to protecting the higher ups of a country, and have anyone shot in the back by their brothers in arms if they have the moral sense to give a big **** you to said politicians. Figuratively speaking, anywho.

I'd certainly say this is the weakest part of my theory on modern civilization after a nuclear apocalypse, honestly... If there's anyone with firearms as a part of their life that wouldn't stand for such selfish abandon, it'd probably be idealistic army men who sure as **** don't fight like militia dogs for their employers whom leash them in the first place. At the same time, you need to wonder if there'd be anything they could do to rebel since transportation is going to be limited to whatever isn't fried by EMPs.

 

[WiiAssasin]

"**** the general public" is going to be the opinion of 99% of all the worthless politicians we've got, IMO.

Wrong!
The general public has the numbers. Higher ups fear the general public, especially when supplies are scarce and patience is at a low. Ignoring them would cause rebellion.
This would be a world-wide event if necessary.

 

[Splash_King]

Who's going to have time to "rebel" when food, water, protection and fire arms are even more scarce to the public, as well as dealing with widespread crime and looting? Do you think people are gonna travel across a nuclear wasteland dealing with bandits and a means of transportation and "rebel"? If a government collapses, you can't have an uprising. If the politicians did successfully divert excessive protection and supplies to themselves, there's nothing that could be done about it.

 

[WiiAssasin]

Who's going to have time to "rebel" when food, water, protection and fire arms are even more scarce to the public, as well as dealing with widespread crime and looting?

Rebellion is ALWAYS due to "food, water, protection and fire arms". Crime and looting will only give them more initiative.

 

[Splash_King]

What would they do to rebel, is my question. When they can't so much as contact these higher figures that shut themselves in safety, where stepping outside your town, home, or whatever shelter their community/they alone posses is dangerous, and what would they even rebel for?

 

[WiiAssasin]

Shut themselves in safety? This isn't a Fallout game.

What would they do to rebel, and what would they even rebel for?

As you previously said: "food, water, protection and fire arms are even more scarce to the public, as well as dealing with widespread crime and looting".
America rebelled for something as trivial as taxes. The above is more than enough motive.

Rebellion is always the same. The rebels either crush the opposition or the rebellion is defeated by a large and powerful force, which doesn't exist in a ruined world.

 

[Aiko]

"God created the world in seven days; humans can end it in seven minutes."

God isn't real though.

 

[Splash_King]

God isn't real though.

Indeed. The countless quotes I use don't necessarily reflect my own views on the world, I can assure ya that much.

Shut themselves in safety? This isn't a Fallout game.

You're right. All the nuclear fallout won't be a game.

America rebelled for something as trivial as taxes. The above is more than enough motive.

You haven't said how they'l rebel, that was my question. What could they possibly do? Rant in the town square where government officials wouldn't hear nor see them? Travel across fallout and criminal-ridden lands? It wouldn't happen. They would want it to, but the danger in just preparing to rebel is too great. If they want to have a revolution, participants will literally be suicidin' their lives just in preparing for it, none the less acting as a part of it. Survival is more important than a rebellion that is a guaranteed failure.

 

[WiiAssasin]

What could they possibly do?

Oh I don't know, how about the exact same thing that happens every time there has been a revolution?
I need not describe the process, just look up any revolution and how they occured.

If they want to have a revolution, participants will literally be suicidin' their lives just in preparing for it, none the less acting as a part of it. Survival is more important than a rebellion that is a guaranteed failure.

You mean having a rebellion..... would be .... risky? By that primitive logic, no revolution would ever occur.

 

[Splash_King]

I need not describe the process, just look up any revolution and how they occured.

To defend a valid and logical point, yes, you do. In places where the government is dirty enough to abandon their people to defend themselves, crime is in abundance and nuclear fallout would be massive. Revolutions have always been about fighting oppression to improve one's life as well as their comrades; the only risk of death through revolution was by the ruling government lashing out to rule with an iron fist. With civilian numbers lowered as well, unity at an all-time low, and death waiting around every bend, not too many people would be keen on revolution, and would be more worried about survival as a whole.

And let's say I'm wrong that many people wouldn't revolt; what would they do? How do you revolt in a land where survival is even harder than the driest, most poverty ridden summer a place like Mexico has ever had, and that's before you're trying to begin a rebellion? How would they even get the governments attention? If they had it, what would they even do?

A revolution after serious nuclear warfare is impossible.

 

[WiiAssasin]

How do you revolt in a land where survival is even harder than the driest, most poverty ridden summer a place like Mexico has ever had, and that's before you're trying to begin a rebellion? How would they even get the governments attention? If they had it, what would they even do?

That is what the oppressors always thought about the possibility of rebellion, until it happened.

A revolution after serious nuclear warfare is impossible.

A weakened government provides the best opportunity for a succesful revolution. Whether it will occur would require further details.

Back on the subject of gang violence gaining power: Wouldn't that count as a form of government rebellion?