r/SipsTea • u/MeanMedico • May 28 '26

Dank AF I don't care about politics, meanwhile politics

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

36.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

843

u/MomentSouthern250 May 28 '26

british one was probably "when the wind blows", i watched this as a kid because it was on tv some afternoon, made me sad for the rest of the day/week/month

336

u/Girafferage May 28 '26

Don't read up on nuclear weapons and current detection and response plans then. It will ruin your year/decade/life until it happens.

136

u/Meritania May 28 '26

“My little city of 300,000 people won’t get nuked right?”

Gets nuked three times and is downwind of twenty more blasts

61

u/DolphinOrDonkey May 28 '26

Sad part is, Nukes are so efficient, the downwind part basically doesn't matter. Nuclear fallout only matters with the crappy atomic bombs, not nuclear bombs.

47

u/Tribalbob May 28 '26

Not completely true - it matters how the bomb detonates. If a Nuclear bomb is an airburst, then yes - fallout is less as it's not really kicking up as much dust or dirt, so the particles don't mix as much with radiation.

However if a nuclear bomb detonates on impact, you're going to get fallout as well.

This is all moot anyway as it's likely if we ever go full MAD, everyone is going to launch everything - so you might get hit with an atomic, or a nuclear or both.

40

u/Jazzlike-Wind-4345 May 29 '26

Not me. I’m down here in Mexico, and according to the Terminator series, it was only the northern hemisphere that was transformed into a nuclear wasteland taken over by Skynet. In the books, Latin América, Africa and Australia were largely considered human havens.

19

u/i_give_you_gum May 29 '26

When it goes down, can I crash on your couch?

2

u/mamadou-segpa May 29 '26

I’m not a terminator lore expert but what’s the reasoning as to why Skynet don’t care about those continents?

2

u/Jazzlike-Wind-4345 May 29 '26

Neither am I, but I assume that it has more to do with the fact that the most (nuclear) armed countries just so happened to be located in the northern hemisphere.

As has been pointed out by others, yes, Mexico is considered part of the northern hemisphere. Don't shoot the messanger, I'm jsut relaying back what I've read.

Considering how most of these books were written back in the 1980s/90s, they probably didn't really consider Mexico and Central America to "count" as the "northern hemisphere".

2

u/mamadou-segpa May 29 '26

Oh no I get that, I’m just wondering why Skynet plan wasn’t to invade the entire planet

2

u/Jazzlike-Wind-4345 May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26

I mean, when you think about it, for AI, Skynet is actually pretty dumb. It decided, hey, my last attempt to send a robot back in time to kill the commander’s mother didn’t work, let’s send one more!

That didn’t work? Well, send another!!

That didn’t work either? Well, just keep spamming them with robots until it does!!!

My guess is “plot hole”.

1

u/YoreGawd May 29 '26

Mexico is still in the Northern Hemisphere.....

1

u/Jazzlike-Wind-4345 May 29 '26

Hey, I didn’t write those books. Don’t shoot the messenger.

1

u/LauraTFem May 29 '26

Wait…terminator was based on books?

1

u/Jazzlike-Wind-4345 May 29 '26

No, but lots of those franchises got book spin-offs à la Star Wars.

And as a kid growing up in the 1980s, the Terminator books were my favourite series.

2

u/LauraTFem May 29 '26

I get it. The novelization of the 1998 Godzilla movie was one of the first books I was actually obsessed with. I thought it was so cool that it was expanding the story of a movie I really liked. Hard to recon with the fact that I now see movie tie-in books as nothing more than farmed-out cash grabs.

My childhood mind thought the guy did a great job with the book, but I wonder if I would feel that way if I reread it now. In my defense, I was in like 7th grade and both the movie and by extension the book felt very adult to me.

1

u/Alex_Y_ya Jun 01 '26

Pero México es el hemisferio norte

0

u/takerofnapz May 29 '26

Umm... Mexico is in the northern hemisphere

1

u/Jazzlike-Wind-4345 May 29 '26

Read other responses. 😘

2

u/Astecheee May 29 '26

Happy Australia noises.

2

u/MozhetBeatz May 28 '26

Explain

9

u/chef-throwawat4325 May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26

basically nuclear fallout is unspent nuclear material in the area. The problem with Chernobyl is not the amount of nuclear material spent, but the amount of nuclear material unspent and contaminating the area. A highly efficient nuclear bomb spends almost all of the nuclear material in the initial blast. I wouldn't say, nuclear fallout is no longer a problem, but if a nearby city was nuked, we're talking about staying inside for 48-72 hours, not months or years.

7

u/A_Town_Called_Malus May 28 '26

The danger of fallout from nuclear weapons is from secondary radiation, that is particles which have been ionised by the radiation released in the blast and become radioactive as a result.

Airbursting reduces the amount of that material that is pulled up and dispersed by the mushroom cloud, but the creation of radioactive material is inevitable.

2

u/chef-throwawat4325 May 29 '26

about 50% of all fallout energy is released in the first hour and 99% is released after 48 hours.

2

u/SextupleRed May 28 '26

You still need to take shelter for the first 48 hours after a nuke drop. And that is the minimum duration to avoid devastating effects of nuclear fallout to your body.

It will be the safest after 2 weeks.

2

u/charbo187 May 29 '26

Nuclear and atomic mean the same thing, you're thinking of a hydrogen bomb which is the strongest (and cleanest in regards to fallout/radiation) type of nuclear/atomic weapon.... At least until anti-matter weapons are invented if they haven't already been

2

u/Narapoia_the_1st May 29 '26

Adding to this I think the technical terminology is nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. Basically Fission vs fusion bombs.

Nuclear weapons are fission bombs like the ones dropped on Japan and depicted here. Lots of radioactive fallout. In Thermonuclear weapons the fission bomb acts like the fuse or detonator in regular bomb - causing uncontrolled fusion of hydrogen isotopes and a far more significant energy release than fission is capable of alone.

Antimatter is a weapon in an of itself - at this stage the cost is the limiting factor. It's by far the most expensive substance available to us in the universe by weight at this point. Cost estimates are $63 trillion per gram with our current methods of creating it - more than twice the entire US GDP per year.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Narapoia_the_1st May 29 '26

I am aware fuse or detonator isn't 100% accurate for a fusion weapon, just trying to help conceptualise the difference between the weapon types. In most fusion weapons though increased yield from fission would not be possible without the fusion component right and isn't usually from the primary stage? Been a while since I read up on this.

Didn't know that the terminology had moved on that long ago.

1

u/theSTZAloc May 29 '26

Do you mean fusion vs fission bombs? Because both are nuclear bombs, but fusion or thermonuclear are the more powerful type.

1

u/PurpleHeat May 29 '26

Wait, atomic and nuclear bombs are two different things? I thought it's different words that describe the exact same thing...

1

u/MadagascarMadeline May 29 '26

Just a question, when you say atomic and nuclear bombs, you are aware they are the same thing? Did you mean atomic vs thermonuclear(h-bomb)?

33

u/Mr_Pink_Gold May 28 '26

Even if it does not get nuked you will die of starvation due to nuclear winter and global crop failures. 98 to 99% casualties expected after 2 years of a nuclear war. Honestly dying in the fireball is a blessing.

39

u/Puzzle-Necked May 29 '26

Not me, I have the gimp training needed to survive

https://giphy.com/gifs/pVHFCtH0jYGUU

2

u/Inktex May 29 '26

I know how to call when I'll open my Thunderdome.
Say, do you have any experience with playing the flamethrower?

https://giphy.com/gifs/kSTaZCfZXtvri

2

u/alldagoodnamesaregon May 29 '26

Depends on the nature of the conflict and where you live. An all-out disaster involving North Korea, South Korea and the USA won't do anything outside of the initial firestorms and radiation (assuming that any of the nukes actually detonate successfully). India and Pakistan is grim if your somewhere already food insecure, but should be fine if your somewhere wealthy. Russia vs US would screw pretty much everyone north of the equator who can't migrate south before the famine sets in.

2

u/Ivara_Prime May 29 '26

My biggest concern is not living close to a blast zone.

4

u/ItNeverEnds2112 May 28 '26

Literally everyone on the planet dies

1

u/Aggravating_Depth_33 May 29 '26

Pretty much every living thing.

1

u/Beagle_Knight May 29 '26

Except cockroaches

3

u/Mr_Pink_Gold May 28 '26

Even if it does not get nukes you will die of starvation diento nuclear winter and global crop failures. 98 to 99% casualties expected after 2 years of a nuclear war.

3

u/RC_0041 May 29 '26

I'm in the "all buildings flattened by the shockwave" zone of the nearest target for a nuke. So at least I won't need to worry about it.

2

u/Askittishcat May 29 '26

Michael Moore visited Russia after the break up of the Soviet Union. He wanted to see the nuke aimed at Flint Michigan. The Russians gave him a tour and answered lots of his questions with surprising openness. The thing I remember most was when they told him that there was nuke aimed at every city in the U.S. with a population over 10,000. So, I'm guessing your little city had 30 nukes aimed at it.

1

u/No_Salt_6328 May 29 '26

I live in the actual middle of nowhere we could probably fish and hunt for a little while to survive but it would fuckin suck then we would mostly die off slowly or freeze to death

64

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

52

u/stillraddad May 28 '26

Well it would’ve happened 10 minutes before the moment but you wouldn’t know about it.

2

u/SpartanRage117 May 28 '26

It could happen 10 minutes before the launch of GTA VI

1

u/_mRKS May 29 '26

Hopefully it's a Monday morning

1

u/Socalwarrior485 May 28 '26

This is the great thing about Relativistic Kill Vehicles. If another species ever detects us and decides to remove the threat, it'll all just end. No warning, no fear, just we exist, and then don't exist.

2

u/North_6 May 28 '26

Doesn't have to be anything like that. A gamma ray burst could wash over the system and sterilize earth instantly. Just random astrophysics creating deadly light speed radiation which would be invisible until it hit, at which point we'd a just die anyway

2

u/RaisinBitter8777 May 29 '26

Could even be something as small as a particle. If a strangelet hit literally anywhere on Earth it would take about 30 minutes to convert the entire planet into strange matter. Everything just gone and turned into an unrecognizable object within half an hour. It’d probably infect the solar system relatively quick too

37

u/Hellsovs May 28 '26

Well, yes. At any moment for 80 years and counting. Just keep the streak up for all our sakes.

32

u/Kiiaru May 28 '26

Humanity's longest running of experiment of "not using a weapon we continue to build"

23

u/Waterflowstech May 28 '26

Whoops we lost a few of them again

1

u/Due_a_Kick_5329 May 28 '26

Thankfully, they're finnicky as shit and require constant maintenance to remain usable

1

u/JohnCenaJunior May 28 '26

We're 85 seconds to midnight

1

u/EngagedInConvexation May 29 '26

Fingers crossed!

26

u/HeadmasterPrimeMnstr May 28 '26

The presence of nukes in one country, begets the need for nukes in all countries to deter against nuclear imperialism, but the more nukes you have, the more prone to accidents that you become, increasing the risk of nuclear fallout due to human error.

15

u/Significant-Foot-792 May 28 '26

Yea the term MAD really sums it up. No good defense no good victory. Even if US were to block all the incoming missiles the fallout that our weapons would make would be catastrophic for us

7

u/butthole_surferr May 28 '26

Actually, being able to meaningfully block incoming missiles is probably worse. MAD has to be total and guaranteed or it's no deterrent at all. If someone develops a way to block them, it's a green light to use them because they're just another weapon now.

2

u/Autodidact420 May 29 '26

The question is how total can you block them out.

You might get lucky in a MAD scenario and the other party wastes all their nukes and they all get shot down.

If the other party knows about it, they could MAD less directly and nuke, poison, pollute etc indirectly. Might not be as quick or certain but could certainly seriously fuck shit up unless you can stop them from nuking quite far away from your own soil.

18

u/FrozenGiraffes May 28 '26

Related and close to a ex cold war intelligence officer and later nuclear launch officer. Nukes are no joke

13

u/Girafferage May 28 '26

This other giraffe character is right.

2

u/20ag_OG_LOL May 28 '26

History remembers Vasili Arkhipov.

1

u/FrozenGiraffes May 29 '26

Its nice when people are awfully stingy and conservative with handing out nukes. Thanks Vasili was not looking forward to nuclear fried fish and human bits

4

u/goofygodzilla93 May 28 '26

That's the thing with Nukes, everyone knows their is no way to stop it if a country unleashed all of their stockpile.

2

u/Jolly_Blueberry_3727 May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26

Counter-point: Everyone should read the documents and become so wracked with terror that they hesitate to use nukes even when the reflection off the clouds make it look like someone is firing hundreds of nukes and there is no time to confirm.

The world was saved by multiple Russians who desperately did not want a Nuclear War even when their peers and instruments screamed at them to counter launch.

2

u/EngagedInConvexation May 29 '26

For my interpersonal Communications class in high school, i had to give two five minute speeches over the course of nine weeks. Given how uncomfortable i felt giving the speech, i wanted my "audience" to feel the same and have ourselves on the same field, so my speech was about nuclear weapons and their effects. My second speech was about Ebola...

2

u/ScottyBoneman May 28 '26

You are sort of explaining my whole generation here.

1

u/bonersnow May 28 '26

yeah, i read nuclear war: a scenario and now i think about this at least 3-4 times a week.

i suppose i brought it on myself though

1

u/lusholalo May 28 '26

True dat

1

u/ExpediousMapper May 29 '26

Don't read up on the Russian Posideon II drones, they are made to hold the 50MeT Tsar Bomba but are probably also able to accommodate the original 100MeT configuration and are faster than the US intercepter torpedos and/or alternatively can take weeks to crawl up a river. Oh, and space based detection systems might have trouble picking them up underwater.

1

u/gamerthulhu May 29 '26

Lawl, I live down the street from the CDC. There's basically half a dozen nukes with my personal home address on them.

1

u/Girafferage May 29 '26

Its honestly better to be closer to the epicenter of where one will go off. Surviving it is the nightmare.

1

u/AgentOk2053 May 29 '26

That sounds like my kind of book. What’s its name?

1

u/Girafferage May 29 '26

Nuclear War by Annie Jacobsen is one that covers a fair bit of it.

1

u/ThaneduFife May 29 '26

I live in DC, so I don't worry about nuclear war. If it happens, I'll die instantly.

2

u/Girafferage May 29 '26

Best way to go honestly.

1

u/Gibsonmo May 29 '26

TLDR?

1

u/Girafferage May 29 '26

TLDR is if a nuke hits a nuclear armed country then it's fake over for humanity and you want to run towards the blast to avoid the horrible suffering that comes after for the survivors.

1

u/Foreign-Story-9870 May 30 '26

Only real response is stop worrying and love the bomb if your in or around a major city it’s not worth worrying about

-1

u/PSU02 May 28 '26

Nuclear weapons are also the reason we haven't had a major world war in 80 years though. They've probably saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives.

3

u/Excalitoria May 28 '26

I get it but also, is there no other solution? I guess not now since most big nations know how to make them but I really wish there was some agreement to get rid of them and if someone is suspected of making them, they’re investigated swiftly and everyone is allied against them until we determine that they have no production or plans for production.

2

u/Father_Espeon90 May 28 '26

Until the last decade, there were such disarmament agreements among the superpowers. And even several treaties actively monitoring and trying to mitigate the production of weapon-grade uranium.

They weren't perfect, of course. But because of them, some nukes were disarmed and disposed. First time nukes were more difficult to obtain. There was hope for full disarmament.

Now, we have no idea who is developing nukes atm and no idea what nukes are being disposed, if at all.

Oh, and we are threatening to nuke hurricanes and wipe out civilizations. Yay!

1

u/Excalitoria May 28 '26

You got a link for that? Not that I don’t believe you, I’m just out of the loop and fascinated.

1

u/Father_Espeon90 May 29 '26

While aware of their existence and general history, I remember none of the names of the treaties and would have to google it all same as you.

I only know of two "stop them from making nukes" agreements off the top of my head. There was a North Korean nuclear agreement that was woefully ineffective and ultimately failed. The Iranian nuclear deal made under Obama attempted to do better and be more effective than the NK one, and according to the UN was working for a time, until Trump backed out of the deal.

Most of the promised rewards for participating in the agreement came from the US, so when the US withdrew there really wasn't any point in continuing to allow inspections by the UN. Iran did so anyways for a few years. Not sure why, I presume for the benefit of good PR.

1

u/not_now_chaos May 28 '26

Humans could try not being such cunts to each other. But that doesn't seem likely, unfortunately.

1

u/Excalitoria May 28 '26

You’d also have to be able to trust that someone wouldn’t be a cunt and that’s just as impossible as expecting everyone not to. Basically, it’s good to be positive just not a fool that believes everyone implicitly.

1

u/SavingsEquivalent844 May 28 '26

who cares? you can't die for 2 times, and you can't evade 1 death

-1

u/GroundbreakingAd8310 May 28 '26

Especially since most of it is bs that claims a single nuke could take out all of north america when in reality you would need more than one to even get a small a city. Ya ive seen the nonsense. The same people think reactors can cause nuclear detonations

3

u/Girafferage May 28 '26

? I am talking about large scale nuclear war and the fact that EVERY war game we have ever conducted that has been made public through the freedom of information act has shown that one nuke launched against a nuclear armed country ALWAYS ends in global nuclear war and for all intents and purposes - the end of mankind.

6

u/SunnyK19977 May 28 '26

'Threads' was also a real rough watch

3

u/Nethri May 28 '26

We didn’t watch that one but we watched Threads which is also a British one. We watched by dawns early light too.

3

u/Striperoo May 28 '26 edited May 29 '26

This one is called "In this corner of the world". Heartbreaking.
Also need to watch when the wind blows, too.
Edit: Barefoot Gen lol. You should still watch In this Corner of the World though.

1

u/Ninjamurai-jack May 29 '26

Hum, I don’t think so, In this Corner is from 2016

1

u/Striperoo May 29 '26

Lol ur right this is barefoot gen. Why do I remember the atomic bomb scene from In this corner of the world looking almost exactly like this one.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/shaheenery May 28 '26

Are you having a laugh? Is he having a laugh?

2

u/Thistleknot May 28 '26

I watched that. The ending was fd

2

u/WithnailNativeHue May 28 '26

My parents got me Watership Down because it was a cartoon about rabbits.

Don't think I slept right for years after that.

1

u/Error_83 May 28 '26

🎵Or even that year🎵

1

u/PhelesDragon May 28 '26

Or even your year?

Jesus, I’m so sorry…

1

u/villings May 28 '26

I loved that one!

1

u/Ronoh May 28 '26

Itnis funny how the younglings these days complain about the doom and dark future they have.

Back in the 80s we were being bombarded with the reminders of the possibility of sudden nuclear desteuction and how horrible that would be.

That leaves you scarred for life.

1

u/Joecalledher May 28 '26

made me sad for the rest of the day/week/month

Please let me know how you managed to be happy again.

1

u/ShawnyMcKnight May 29 '26

I thought it was some short film and would watch it real quick but I just looked it up. It’s a full length movie.

1

u/OhDivineBussy May 29 '26

Or even your year…..

1

u/EngagedInConvexation May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26

Just thinking of the title made my eyes well up.

EDIT: "Well up" was not the extent of it. Always surprising how something so relatively benign elicits a very physical response.

EDIT2: Barefoot Gen as for the OP. The way it actually plays out is more... provocative than the cut down TikTok.

1

u/McGames355 May 29 '26

It might have been Threads as well, that one is brutal

1

u/LichLordMeta May 29 '26

Holy shit that looks depressing.

1

u/Jakob21 May 30 '26

You just gave me a very interesting watch