who would last longer.... North vs South

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

Hard North v Soft South. Only one winner.

 

Angel1.

[Anna B 1,414]

I agree Happ.

Since I was young, when nuclear annihilation was considered to be the end of everything, I've noticed a change in perception to surviving a nuclear war. This is dangerous nonsense.

 

Actually, they can do considerable life threatening damage with cyber attacks. That's what I fear will be the future of warfare.

[jaffa1 10]

17 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Really?

 

I'm sure those people living in some of the poorer parts of sub saharan Africa would be very happy to hear they have utilities at the touch of a button and are surrounded by consumer goods!

 

 

Oh now the conversation changes to Africa, I thought the OP was talking UK.

 

[Longcol 602]

Cornwall, west Wales and north Scotland & the Western Isles would probably be the best places to survive a catastrophe.

[FinBak 12]

The North. 

[mickey finn 12]

There would be little left round these parts, I can think of at least six big targets that are so close to Sheffield the blast areas would be overlapping, in fact many cities, Sheffield included, would be hit by more than one warhead, but as said earlier the further up north you go the better your short term chances are, ultimately though you can expect a severely shortened lifespan.

[I1L2T3 10]

22 minutes ago, mickey finn said:

There would be little left round these parts, I can think of at least six big targets that are so close to Sheffield the blast areas would be overlapping, in fact many cities, Sheffield included, would be hit by more than one warhead, but as said earlier the further up north you go the better your short term chances are, ultimately though you can expect a severely shortened lifespan.

I remember once reading that Sheffield would get two in the East of the city: one south of where Meadowhall is now to knock out industry and major north south road communications, a further north to ensure that north south road communication is cut. One in the city centre and one in the south west of the city to take out railways lines south and west. Finningly would have been hit too. Redundancy would be built into the attack plan with most targets assigned multiple warheads.

 

There would be hardly anything or anybody left.

Edited March 31, 2019 by I1L2T3

[K1Machine 10]

20 hours ago, retep said:

Ever tried eating a credit/bank card?

Oh, I forgot. The rich and privileged measure their wealth by the size of their debit card.

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

45 minutes ago, mickey finn said:

There would be little left round these parts, I can think of at least six big targets that are so close to Sheffield the blast areas would be overlapping, in fact many cities, Sheffield included, would be hit by more than one warhead, but as said earlier the further up north you go the better your short term chances are, ultimately though you can expect a severely shortened lifespan.

When Sheffield steel was regarded as the "best" and there was a thriving steel industry in the City, maybe a couple of nukes might have been required to stop it's production. But to-day I think a stick of gelignite would be enough to do the business. 

 

Sheffield was known as steel city, wonder what it is called these days.

 

Angel1.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 minute ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Sheffield was known as steel city, wonder what it is called these days.

It still is known as Steel City. 

 

Rather that production which which is now way cheaper in the Far East, value is added to steel in Sheffield by a number of different very specialised finishing processes.

 

When Trump went to war with the rest of the world over steel tariffs, it emerged that part of the International Space Station was made from steel finished in Sheffield which NASA would have to pay a fortune for if Trump didn’t back down.

 

So yes, Sheffield would still be a target!

[retep 68]

1 hour ago, I1L2T3 said:

I remember once reading that Sheffield would get two in the East of the city: one south of where Meadowhall is now to knock out industry and major north south road communications, a further north to ensure that north south road communication is cut. One in the city centre and one in the south west of the city to take out railways lines south and west. Finningly would have been hit too. Redundancy would be built into the attack plan with most targets assigned multiple warheads.

 

There would be hardly anything or anybody left.

Here,

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/terrifying-interactive-map-reveals-millions-of-londoners-would-die-if-a-nuclear-bomb-was-dropped-on-a3803036.html

 

https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/interactive/bomb-blast/?airburst=false&bomb=2&lat=53.3825&location=Sheffield%2C South Yorkshire%2C England%2C United Kingdom&long=-1.47194

Edited March 31, 2019 by retep

[K1Machine 10]

22 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

It still is known as Steel City. 

 

Rather that production which which is now way cheaper in the Far East, value is added to steel in Sheffield by a number of different very specialised finishing processes.

 

When Trump went to war with the rest of the world over steel tariffs, it emerged that part of the International Space Station was made from steel finished in Sheffield which NASA would have to pay a fortune for if Trump didn’t back down.

 

So yes, Sheffield would still be a target!

It didn't take long for Trump to get a mention. 

Some people are obsessed 😂