>>1522353Threads is fairly disturbing, but it also wasn't very realistic, and even less representative of a nuclear war today. A nuclear winter that extreme, as shown in the movie would not have happened in any scenario. Even in the 80's when then they had far larger and more nuclear weapons, the premise behind nuclear winters was fundamentally flawed. They assumed that a nuclear explosion would have similar emissions to the bombing of Dresden and Tokyo. Except, Tokyo's buildings were made of wood and Dresden's destruction was caused by a firestorm, which they assumed a nuclear explosion would cause. Except, nuclear weapons are not incendiary by nature, they are bombs that obliterate large areas of land, not set it on fire. In addition, fallout from a nuclear war would be minimal in just about every scenario. If you've ever seen one of those fallout maps, like pic related, it's from the 1960's, it is assuming a large number of the nuclear explosions are ground bursts, and that it is all taking place on a windy spring day; the worst case scenario in other words. Except, unless it's a nuclear silo or bunker, airbursts are far preferable because they cause greater destruction, but also spread less radiation. And unless it is extremely windy, as in spring, the nuclear radiation isn't going to be carried very far. All that is to say, people wouldn't be speaking like demented cavemen within a single generation after a nuclear scenario. People weren't feral creatures before the mass availability of schools, and they probably wouldn't be after their destruction either. All that being said, a full scale nuclear war would still likely kill you, but more from the collapse in society and infrastructure than the actual bombs. So if it really scares you that much, stock up on food, and lots of water, and other emergency supplies, and you'll be better off than 90% of people.
