@@-Export86- It takes it’s toll on any device honestly, I’ve been lucky to play it fairly well with normal sized ships… but those map sized super battleships still destroy my fps
91 million immedatly vaporized, the death toll by the subsequent fires, nuclear winter and invetibble starvation and radiation sickness due to contaminated water will number in the bllions. Those 91 are the lucky unhurt.
@@theterribleanimator1793 There are roughly 8 million people in New York City alone. There are a *hell of a lot more* than just 10 population centers on Earth. There are Dozens of cities with higher populations than New York. It's a comically low number.
@@walternelson2687 Maybe now. The population amount has changed drastically. And have you actually looked at the total population numbers for both the US and Russia? It's large, but it isn't that large.
That would be a good book series. Just the southern hemisphere reeling back from the effects of literally half the globe going up in nuclear flames and bunkering down for the subsequent nuclear fallout that would inevitably traverse the entire planet. And then there's Austriala just losing the 3rd Emu war again.
There's a good chance it will never be used. Nukes are the ultimate weapon that dr Gatling theorized about. They make war obsolete as there are no winners.
This simulation doesn't take into account interception technology, cruise missile technology, ground-ops, hybrid-ops, aerial interception abilities, air launched munitions, or the full scale of submarine warfare. The truth is so much messier and harder to show on screen. (Not a criticism of OP or this video, just adding in)
Doesn't really matter as the damage will be done no matter what. A few hundred nukes getting intercepted changes absolutely nothing. No offense but once the nukes are launced, both the US and Russia are deeply fucked.
Fun fact, most nuclear powers have the MAD doctrine (mutually assured destruction) where I one power launches nuclear bombs onto another nuclear power it’s all out nuclear war via mutually assured destruction. France however, has a “nuclear warning shot” doctrine, if invaded by nuclear power or not, they fire a warning shot first. A warning shot for a nuclear weapon…
@@chriswho12345 No, that's not the reason. They still have SSBNs stationed around the world that can strike if their mainland is hit, like everybody else. They are just clinically insane.
@@jonny2954 I do not see why people make such a big deal about nuclear weapons. Oh by the way, if you do not have to maintain them because you are actively using them, it becomes really efficient to produce them in mass
It's going to be really interesting to see how the refugee situation is controlled so many possibilities and not all of them end well for both sides but it does not mean that all options are bad
@@tomasruffa5488 holy molly the most likely involves around 400T of ammo world wide, either in policing actions or uhh uhm... , I think you got the idea
the irony of these scenarios is having to devote a lot of weapons to target enemy weapons that will be launched by the time yours get to theirs. so a lot of those nukes are hitting empty airbases and missile silos.
I dont think all the missiles are sitting ready to launch so any facility capable of housing and launching would be a target to prevent further launch capabilities.
France actually left NATO for a few years in the 70's so it isn't that weird they would be out of the fire, but it is very unlikely that they would just ignore the whole shitshow
@@Somethingsomethingidrk I can see two possibilities in that situation. 1: Some nations with "acceptable" political and social stability open up refugees to settle and treat (possibly for radioactive poisoning) the injured 2: with the excuse that the refugees are sick with multiple diseases, that there is no space in their nation, with lack of basic supplies or simply saying that all the destruction of the northern hemisphere is their fault. and consequently they deny/prohibit entry and help refugees
It's definitely the old plan. Nowadays they would target China to avoid the world falling under the Chinese sphere and in turn they would attract as well.
Reminds me of an old game called DEFCON. It had a mode designed to play out over 8 hours, the idea was that you played it at work and a little icon would flash at you if someone launched a nuke.
@@alexei5231 España es bombardeada también por parte de los rusos, observa bien el mapa, los efectos post guerra harían lo suyo con el hemisferio norte. Cómo mucho, Argentina, Chile y Nueva Zelanda podrían salvarse
Don't fall for the despair that can come from your fears potentially being realized. We still have to make good rational choices for the sake of the future! Buckle up!
Radiation here will be crazy so better to Australia/new Zealand/south Africa/south America (Despite everything except Australia is not that good choice)
@@eliseenkoivan We do, and we call it "counter-force." It involves launching the better part of 500 warheads to destroy enemy nuclear forces before they can launch, not just 1 to send a message.
@@jamesharding3459 Exactly. That's why it's silly to to think that nuclear war will start by one launch. Even if we decide to be the first who will push that button, it probably would be a massive strike.
Even tho we look like unwrapped mummies and always sound like we have lung cancer we're happy and yes timmy has a third leg but he's best in his class at athletics
Hawaii would starve if cut off from the mainland and alaska is already a depressing ice hole, they would have to contend with whatever is left of both the US's and SU's military
@@nyoomi1483If a nuclear winter does happen. Our estimations of the ash thrown up for that rely on cities becoming firestorms - which seems unlikely considering how much of them is made of concrete.
91 million is 1.2% the world population. Most of the northerners would survive, and desperate billions would move south and colonize Africa and South America by force out of desperation. They would stand no chance. They're not immune to this conflict.
@@eternalsharontate2311Nah man, Australia getting the nukes too, they were close US allies in the pacific and would have threatened the India-Soviet Pacific fleet connection
Lol no what fantasies do you have? (assuming that you believe China will take over the world) Most nations will collapse from the ensuing nuclear cooling/winter, and agricultural industries around the world will collapse and humanity will be forced into a population numbering less than 3 billion, possibly even being in the hundreds of millions. This is all to say... no, we won't be learning Mandarin in highschool, if there are enough people to even have a fully functuoning school in the first place.
I'd really love to see a piece of media focus on how the Southern Hemisphere would fare in this situation. Toooootally not because I'm from there, but since no one down here has any reason to have a sun dropped on them that gives writers a huge opportunity. For those currently at war, would they make peace with their enemies or continue on? How would everyone handle the possible refugee crisis? Would the countries that are able to grow wheat export their goods or keep it all to themselves?
South america and africa will be taken over by china. Probably not the worst outcome, given that USA and russia have driven the global south into so many pointless wars. I mean, it can't be a worse influence than USA+RU
Read an old paper on the impact to New Zealand of a nuclear war. General consensus was pray like fuck it happens during our winter when most crops have already been harvested and we might be able to pull through until spring . Plus fish like crazy. What would fuck is in the modern era is lack of fossil fuel refining since the last refineriey was closed here and most of our electricity is hydro so if that freezes we are fucked
@@anaiswatterson1696 Luckily, that's not actually how fallout works. The damage would spread significantly, but the effects of radiation and radioactive fallout wouldn't come close to covering the planet. After all-out nuclear war, radiation is going to be pretty low on the list of immediate problems.
Thats simply the deaths from blast alone. Deaths from contaminated land, water, radiation, starvation in the third world as western countries no longer export food, internal collapse and anarchy of almost every nation would put deaths into the billions. Humanity would survive, but take thousands of years to regrow just the population to current sizes, not even mentioning technological setback from the near complete loss of Industry.
@@Yuki-ol7hf i mean you are, the nuclear scare is from the cold war, modern nukes aim to remove most nuclear fallout as its tactically flawed, nukes went to fear factors to precision weapons. sure, ALL nukes on earth could end most life, but its impossible to arm every nuke as theres only so many silos and resources to do so. not to mention there were major nuclear disarmaments after the cold war once again, in favour of superior more logical tactical weaponry.
Well, that's the problem with nuclear war, if that ever happens, caution and "precise" bombardments is thrown to the window for the sake of destroying your enemy before he does the same to you. If some country reached the point of actually throwing a nuke at the enemy, then it's already too late.@@BEANBOYOBEANITH
Direct casualties from the exchange, not including death by radiation poisoning, starvation, fires, and so forth in the coming months thereafter. Also Indian China and Pakistan will probably glass each other too if we get to this stage but that's not modeled here
@@Stuck_In_The_Ice_Box I would expect with the loss of Russia and the US, India would not risk any conflicts with China. Remember that BOTH the US and Russia are very friendly to India, with Russia being somewhat of an informal ally. India is still lagging behind China by 2 full decades GDP and productive capabilities wise, they are catching up fast but it will take at least another few decades for them to be even. Without foreign aid India has no hope of taking on China conventional or nuclear. That being said both of their economies would crash and many are likely to starve to death as neither countries can feed themselves. I feel like the Saudis or some other middle eastern countrie's going to be the winner here, not only are they spared from the nukes, they have unfettered access to the untouched African continent. With their previous wealth and US made amarments, they could easily take over Africa and it's resources.
@@realname4401 chances are that MAD doctrine has provisions for nuking unaligned countries as well, to prevent competition for the recovering superpowers.
Pffffff, as if a nuclear bunker will help you in this day and age. Are you that dumb to not realize that russia has the capabilities to make hypersonic missiles? Those missiles were able to destroy an NATO command bunker in ukraine, so don't think they'd not modify nukes to have said properties. And the USA is only researching those just now. I mean, if you wanna gamble, then alright. Don't expect to come out on top though, like any brain dead hollyweird, propagandist movie/game/entertainment would make out to be, as if USA would still somehow survive. Actually, none of us would. Not even russia. Because once nuclear war starts, you better start praying hard to god and hope that you have repented for your sins, because that bunker will be destroyed, and will be flooded with radiation, if not something even worse, like, say, cobalt 60. So. Still wanna gamble? Real life is much, MUCH different than what you see in the movies. Or games. Or any other piece of entertainment.
Not to worry, the simulation is only concerned with west asia, europe and north america. Let me assure you that Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, China, Japan, Australia among others will have their major population centers targeted aswell.
Not seen in this simulation: the Alaskan, coastal, and Pacific land-based chemical laser anti ICBM systems that don't and haven't existed since the 80's because treaties say they're not supposed to exist. Just like treaties said biological weapons aren't supposed to exist, which was why weaponized smallpox and yersinia pestis never existed
I expect they'll stop some, but not all. If they could stop all, you'd want to show them off to demonstrate the inefficacy of a nuclear attack on you...
@@theregalproletariat not necessarily. If you're not supposed to have something in the first place, you're not going to show it off. Furthermore, you don't want your enemy aware of your capability so that they could develop countermeasures. Finally, unexpectedly shooting down an entire enemy ICBM launch allows for crazy surrender negotiations since you would 100% be justified in returning fire due to an act of literal attempted genocide, so basically they would have to do whatever you say or get nuked, and you could do it with minimal third party diplomatic blowback-that would not be the case if you just exposed it and then tried to extort things without provocation. Or maybe it has a 99% success rate but a single nuke getting through can mean millions dead, so you still don't want to risk escalation. Anyways the point is there's lots of reasons to keep such a system close to your chest.
@@KissatenYoba so, you know the US has officially admitted to possessing 1MW chem lasers in 1979, which means we most likely had them 5 years prior. They shot down satellites with these lasers; ICBMs have trajectories and speeds similar to a satellite. Now imagine you're an AF general in 1980. You have a weapon in your hands with the capability of shooting down an ICBM, and you know thanks to your countries' possession of submarine based ICBMs MAD is all but guaranteed, so invasion will never happen and the only real threat to US security is nuclear and chemical weapons. In what universe do you NOT have the only military weakness your country has immediately addressed with the tech you already have on hand? Like, to an overwhelming level of security? Especially considering that you just got a president more than willing to break nuclear treaties? All you need is funding-oh wait, wasn't there this big defense program in 80's whose stated goal was space based anti-ICBM lasers, with hundreds of billions of dollars (in 80's money) just disappearing into that program, even though it was supposedly unsuccessful? What if it actually was successful, and the only thing different was that the lasers were ground based?
"Once the genie is out of the bottle, we will not be able to put it back inside." -Highfleet
I love highfleet to bad my pc is a toaster
@@-Export86- It takes it’s toll on any device honestly, I’ve been lucky to play it fairly well with normal sized ships… but those map sized super battleships still destroy my fps
"that's fine because I only have 1 wish to make" -Ssethtzeentach
@@inquisitorbenediktanders3142
"I wish... for nuclear winter."
-Also Sseth Tzeentach
Thankfully in Highfleet....ships can move to avoid nukes
Unfortunately.....cities can't.
average human disagreement:
*minor
Guys in southern hemisphere: oh boy, glad we didn't get hit!
Guys in southern hemisphere days later: why is it raining acid
Winter is coming, but in nuclear fallout 😊
91 Million is a *comically low* number in this situation.
91 million immedatly vaporized, the death toll by the subsequent fires, nuclear winter and invetibble starvation and radiation sickness due to contaminated water will number in the bllions. Those 91 are the lucky unhurt.
@@theterribleanimator1793 There are roughly 8 million people in New York City alone. There are a *hell of a lot more* than just 10 population centers on Earth. There are Dozens of cities with higher populations than New York.
It's a comically low number.
@@walternelson2687 The numbers are comically inaccurate because the global population has in all likelihood more than doubled since this sim was made.
@@walternelson2687 Maybe now. The population amount has changed drastically. And have you actually looked at the total population numbers for both the US and Russia? It's large, but it isn't that large.
O mais cômico é fazer uma simulação representando na maioria dos mísseis nucleares da guerra fria, e nenhum ser abatido no meio do caminho antes 😂
People in the Southern hemisphere wondering what the hell just happened to the Horizon...
That would be a good book series. Just the southern hemisphere reeling back from the effects of literally half the globe going up in nuclear flames and bunkering down for the subsequent nuclear fallout that would inevitably traverse the entire planet.
And then there's Austriala just losing the 3rd Emu war again.
@@patchpatch4008 Emo War
-Oversimplified
Most conventional HighFleet playthrough
You would be correct, my fellow tarkhan.
The world: Total destruction
Burgundy: A new dawn for a new master race
Russia: T H E G R E A T T R I A L A W A I T S
Australia: Crikey
Mitchell werbell would be proud
"A strange game. The only winning move is to not play."
played "First strike" I see
Most realistic comment.
*NEW YORK HIT*
*7.2 MILLION DEAD*
It is existentially terrifying how humanity has made its own man-made prophecy of a world-ending cataclysm that is destined, but not certain, to come.
Kinda makes you proud yet disappointed.
what do you mean "destined but not certain?"
@@matty1094destined in term of "if", uncertain in terms of "when" and "how".
"You will have your god, and you will make him with your own hands"
There's a good chance it will never be used. Nukes are the ultimate weapon that dr Gatling theorized about. They make war obsolete as there are no winners.
Me: finally gets a girlfriend somehow
World leaders next day
This simulation doesn't take into account interception technology, cruise missile technology, ground-ops, hybrid-ops, aerial interception abilities, air launched munitions, or the full scale of submarine warfare.
The truth is so much messier and harder to show on screen.
(Not a criticism of OP or this video, just adding in)
Doesn't really matter as the damage will be done no matter what. A few hundred nukes getting intercepted changes absolutely nothing. No offense but once the nukes are launced, both the US and Russia are deeply fucked.
Fun fact, most nuclear powers have the MAD doctrine (mutually assured destruction) where I one power launches nuclear bombs onto another nuclear power it’s all out nuclear war via mutually assured destruction.
France however, has a “nuclear warning shot” doctrine, if invaded by nuclear power or not, they fire a warning shot first.
A warning shot for a nuclear weapon…
Huh? So they fire a nuclear weapon as a warning shot?
@@goen5601
It's actually very effective. Hard not to notice.
@@goen5601 france is a much smaller power in terms of land area and nuclear missile capabilities, so they have to use 1st shot instead of MAD
@@chriswho12345 No, that's not the reason. They still have SSBNs stationed around the world that can strike if their mainland is hit, like everybody else.
They are just clinically insane.
@@jonny2954 I do not see why people make such a big deal about nuclear weapons.
Oh by the way, if you do not have to maintain them because you are actively using them, it becomes really efficient to produce them in mass
1:17 Jesus Christ the beat drop was cold as fuck
The genie is NOT going back in the bottle
we know man. it sucks lol. we just gotta chill and make good choices haha
ᵀʰᵉ ᴮᵉᵍᶦⁿⁿᶦⁿᵍ ᵒᶠ
- NUCLEAR WAR -
the bottle is broken and the lid has disintegrated
gotta love how the south is just chilling
Brazil vai ser a nova potência dominante 😂
Australia, africa, southeast asia rejoicing
And then they gotta deal with a refugee crisis, and WEEEEEAAAAAATTTTTTTHHHHHHEEEERRRRR
It's going to be really interesting to see how the refugee situation is controlled
so many possibilities and not all of them end well for both sides but it does not mean that all options are bad
@@tomasruffa5488 holy molly the most likely involves around 400T of ammo world wide, either in policing actions or uhh uhm... , I think you got the idea
“Why don’t aliens visit us”
fuck nato
@@tovarishchmartins4999 Fuck the UN and China nad Russia specifically
@@Jörmungandr645Russia and China are forcing you to import muslims and have mandatory lgbtq troon rights lectures
@@tovarishchmartins4999why such a Hater 😂
Because we make Videos Like this and react on those Videos in such a mannor
the irony of these scenarios is having to devote a lot of weapons to target enemy weapons that will be launched by the time yours get to theirs. so a lot of those nukes are hitting empty airbases and missile silos.
I dont think all the missiles are sitting ready to launch so any facility capable of housing and launching would be a target to prevent further launch capabilities.
i love how france, a NATO nuclear power, gets completely ignored and does jack shit while the rest of europe gets vetrified
Even though they bomb London...
"Vetrify" is now a new word in my vocabulary thanks to you.
France actually left NATO for a few years in the 70's so it isn't that weird they would be out of the fire, but it is very unlikely that they would just ignore the whole shitshow
UK didn't do crap either
@@pandibbarman But London was destroyed which is all that matters in the UK
Nothing like seeing white dots flourishing over a map to really scare the living hell out of a man
All of the southern hemisphere🗿
Brazil após o inverno nuclear:🗿🤳
That is until they have to deal with the refugee crisis...
@@Somethingsomethingidrk I can see two possibilities in that situation.
1: Some nations with "acceptable" political and social stability open up refugees to settle and treat (possibly for radioactive poisoning) the injured
2: with the excuse that the refugees are sick with multiple diseases, that there is no space in their nation, with lack of basic supplies or simply saying that all the destruction of the northern hemisphere is their fault. and consequently they deny/prohibit entry and help refugees
India: 🗿
@@generalbenjaminarrola340nah India
the world the second I get a girlfriend
Luckily that’ll never happen
No, anon, even a cold one will dump you.
Serbia chilling in the middle of a sea of irradiated ground
We are God's choosen people
Even Nuclear war don't want to come too us
As always we are late by about 5 years xD
@@3_am___ same
Alaska just casually not getting hit at all the whole time
Atleast Russia is smart enouth to not target their own (allbeit former) teritories
the music kicking in as soon as the us launches all the missles is great 1:11
The only winning move is simply not to play.
Such is life.
Australia, Japan, Korea, and China not touched? must've been the old plan.
It's definitely the old plan. Nowadays they would target China to avoid the world falling under the Chinese sphere and in turn they would attract as well.
Reminds me of an old game called DEFCON. It had a mode designed to play out over 8 hours, the idea was that you played it at work and a little icon would flash at you if someone launched a nuke.
I like how the other side of world just sitting here and wondering what the fuck is happeing up in the north
"thats another strike group... eh fuck it its late game anyways"
*Sadly it will never happend*
"some mf in spain probably"
They couldnt hit Madrid or Barcelona, its have to be Sevilla from all places
Idk looking at recent events we have never been closer to a nuclear war than ever before even during the height of the cold war.
And to think this all happened because some Serbian dude wanted a sandwich.
Unfortunately that's a myth, Princip never bought a sandwich.
@@battadia Aw...
Pov: all the strike groups you have been avoding when you get to khiva:
As someone from Latin America. I can't wait to play on the nuclear snow.
When you launch a single nuke in highfleet:
1:16 nice music sync
Africa: 🗿
Oceania: 🗿
South America: 🗿
Spain: 👍
@@alexei5231 España es bombardeada también por parte de los rusos, observa bien el mapa, los efectos post guerra harían lo suyo con el hemisferio norte. Cómo mucho, Argentina, Chile y Nueva Zelanda podrían salvarse
Don't fall for the despair that can come from your fears potentially being realized. We still have to make good rational choices for the sake of the future! Buckle up!
What are talking about. This is the rational choice. End our suffering, dude.
It's be an Honor Chitposting with you. o7 o/
Matthew Broderick's computer friend wasn't lying. The only way to win IS, in fact, not to play.
I'm moving to Greenland.
Radiation here will be crazy so better to Australia/new Zealand/south Africa/south America
(Despite everything except Australia is not that good choice)
The simulation lost all semblance of reality as soon as they used the words "nuclear warning shots."
Yep. We don't have prevent nuclear shot doctrine.
@@eliseenkoivan We do, and we call it "counter-force."
It involves launching the better part of 500 warheads to destroy enemy nuclear forces before they can launch, not just 1 to send a message.
@@jamesharding3459 Exactly. That's why it's silly to to think that nuclear war will start by one launch. Even if we decide to be the first who will push that button, it probably would be a massive strike.
France legit uses "nuclear warning shots."
@@someguy7723 and it’s actually kinda sus. If France as a part of Nato launches a nuke, would it set up a whole alliance?🤔
Meanwhile in Africa and South America: These winter jackets are actually really nice!
Yeah and the kids are so happy playing in the snow!
Even tho we look like unwrapped mummies and always sound like we have lung cancer we're happy and yes timmy has a third leg but he's best in his class at athletics
Australians: huh why is there snow?
They missed a spot
Finally, no city slickers.
I love how hawaii and alaska be just chillin. Enclave finna rise up..
Hawaii would starve if cut off from the mainland and alaska is already a depressing ice hole, they would have to contend with whatever is left of both the US's and SU's military
@@Dogman262 Alaskans know how to hunt, you know.
Bruh, there will be no hunt, no farms, no light and even no clear water. Just nuclear winter and radiation. No escape on Earth.
@@SkullllX yes escape on earth, it is south
Got it. Move to the southern hemisphere or south-east Asia to avoid nuclear annihilation.
well the radioactive wind storms coming from the northeast wouldnt make for a good time
@@kovacsnovak6745the jet streams would probably keep the fallout in the north so if you went to the southern hemisphere it probably wouldn’t touch you
yea but what about the nuclear winter though wouldnt the whole world go dark for a few months of year anyways
@@dumbcook42 there's very hot climate so I guess winter will be moderate
thank you panzer of lake for the wisdomes
Someone with a big black hat is laughing hard in the background
"Nuclear warning shot"
Goodbye northern hemisphere
The rest of europe:🔥☠️🫠
Scotland:😊🏴🎆
Until nuclear winter of course
Slovenia safe fr
@_drnova1064 oh yeah, true bro
So the ruins of the Northern Hemisphere would eventually be inherited by Africa, South America, and Australia
If a large enough group of people survive the resulting nuclear winter and the radioactive ash blocking out the sun.
@@nyoomi1483If a nuclear winter does happen.
Our estimations of the ash thrown up for that rely on cities becoming firestorms - which seems unlikely considering how much of them is made of concrete.
91 million is 1.2% the world population. Most of the northerners would survive, and desperate billions would move south and colonize Africa and South America by force out of desperation. They would stand no chance. They're not immune to this conflict.
@@Ranstone Well at least they would not get to Australia lol, it’s too far away and surrounded by ocean
@@eternalsharontate2311Nah man, Australia getting the nukes too, they were close US allies in the pacific and would have threatened the India-Soviet Pacific fleet connection
Poland.. don't... do it.... no....Poland...PPOOOLANDX! Invoked NATO article 5*
Yeah Poland is just looking for an excuse to get some payback on Russia for world war II. Let's hope that they never get to invoke article 5
“Brothers and Sisters…. This is the end of the world”
Next time, put a spoiler tag on the video, damn, i hate to miss the story...
Thumbnail made me sing "I saw Russia kissing Santa Claus"
-1 kindness
Nuclear Gandhi
And in 100 years they will learn mandarin in junior school.
I’m pretty sure NATO doctrine is to glass all potential adversaries as well. Iran China NK etc.
Lol no what fantasies do you have? (assuming that you believe China will take over the world) Most nations will collapse from the ensuing nuclear cooling/winter, and agricultural industries around the world will collapse and humanity will be forced into a population numbering less than 3 billion, possibly even being in the hundreds of millions. This is all to say... no, we won't be learning Mandarin in highschool, if there are enough people to even have a fully functuoning school in the first place.
@@alicorn3924 we won't learn it even if there is no nuclear war
Chinese population is on the same path as Japan's
And Hindi
why the hell does italy die but france gets to live
I was wondering the same. France actually has nukes, I wasn't even aware any nuclear weapons are based in Italy.
@@wh8787Italy, as a politically weak country, has seen many nuclear silos be built by the USA. Some have been removed but many remain.
It's on the to do list.
Revenge for Mario being more popular than Tetris
@@ld1728 checked it out and unfortunately this is true.
WORLD WR THREE, LET'S FUCKIN GOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Thats crazy... a nuclear missile is currently 315 miles away moving at 441mph is inbound to your current location
*submarine vibing sounds*
I have waited 80 years for the sequel
Houston's gone but hey, look guys, california's gone too
win win situation
thank you rus-
I'd really love to see a piece of media focus on how the Southern Hemisphere would fare in this situation. Toooootally not because I'm from there, but since no one down here has any reason to have a sun dropped on them that gives writers a huge opportunity. For those currently at war, would they make peace with their enemies or continue on? How would everyone handle the possible refugee crisis? Would the countries that are able to grow wheat export their goods or keep it all to themselves?
South america and africa will be taken over by china. Probably not the worst outcome, given that USA and russia have driven the global south into so many pointless wars. I mean, it can't be a worse influence than USA+RU
Read an old paper on the impact to New Zealand of a nuclear war. General consensus was pray like fuck it happens during our winter when most crops have already been harvested and we might be able to pull through until spring . Plus fish like crazy. What would fuck is in the modern era is lack of fossil fuel refining since the last refineriey was closed here and most of our electricity is hydro so if that freezes we are fucked
South hemisphere is king
It's so good to be a third world fella in these cases😅
For the first week, yes. Then everyone starts coughing blood
@@FrankensteinV203 We manage
@@FrankensteinV203Yeah. Then it gets worse! The radiation hits.
Until the radiation fallout covers the whole planet
@@anaiswatterson1696 Luckily, that's not actually how fallout works. The damage would spread significantly, but the effects of radiation and radioactive fallout wouldn't come close to covering the planet.
After all-out nuclear war, radiation is going to be pretty low on the list of immediate problems.
*VENEZUELA GAMBIT*
*MEXICO ESCALATION*
*CHAD ALERT*
Gonna tell my kids I survived that
"Listen friend, I know the world is scary right now but.... it's about to get way worse"
Europe Simulator 2024
on god
Where no one wins, no one survives
nah humans will survive. its just gonna suck ass forever
Watching this from Kaliningrad
Do u guys have underground bunkers all over the region?
rip you if ww3 starts
this video is actually made by Alex Glaser the video name is Plan A and it was made 5 years ago
91.5 million is actually not as bad as I thought. Fallout and Judge Dredd were WAY off
Thats simply the deaths from blast alone. Deaths from contaminated land, water, radiation, starvation in the third world as western countries no longer export food, internal collapse and anarchy of almost every nation would put deaths into the billions. Humanity would survive, but take thousands of years to regrow just the population to current sizes, not even mentioning technological setback from the near complete loss of Industry.
91.5 million from explosions. billions from radiation, famine, nuclear winter, and ecological disaster.
I'm not exagerating when I say that the damage and aftermath of the bombs, could mean the end of almost ALL life on earth.
@@Yuki-ol7hf i mean you are, the nuclear scare is from the cold war, modern nukes aim to remove most nuclear fallout as its tactically flawed, nukes went to fear factors to precision weapons.
sure, ALL nukes on earth could end most life, but its impossible to arm every nuke as theres only so many silos and resources to do so.
not to mention there were major nuclear disarmaments after the cold war once again, in favour of superior more logical tactical weaponry.
Well, that's the problem with nuclear war, if that ever happens, caution and "precise" bombardments is thrown to the window for the sake of destroying your enemy before he does the same to you. If some country reached the point of actually throwing a nuke at the enemy, then it's already too late.@@BEANBOYOBEANITH
I dont really know how or why it's been ignored but ig i'm thankful the most western part of europe is apparently safe from direct fire
Especially since france would most likely be the one to fire the warning shot. A nuclear fucking warning shot and its subsequent first strike doctrine
WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY A GAME OF CHESS?
I like that Ukraine gets nuclear strikes from both sides, while France just stands aside
Hyperborea type music
@@Fred_the_1996 Fun fact: Raw milk cures radiation poisoning
@@-Export86-nice
КАЗАХСТАН 🇰🇿 УГРОЖАЕТ ⚠️ НАМ БОМБАРДИРОВКОЙ 💣
What happens half a second after Sevastopol do a nuclear salvo on the nuclear powerplant.
Nah, we’d win
Average Fallout lore
Another wonderful day in the Land Down Under.
You just get to have a great day On The Beach.
Yes, most of the world population is in the China India and Africa. But with entirety of europe destroyed how come casualties be just 90 mil
Direct casualties from the exchange, not including death by radiation poisoning, starvation, fires, and so forth in the coming months thereafter. Also Indian China and Pakistan will probably glass each other too if we get to this stage but that's not modeled here
@@Stuck_In_The_Ice_Boxmore than likely any country at that point would def be using them
@@Stuck_In_The_Ice_Box I would expect with the loss of Russia and the US, India would not risk any conflicts with China. Remember that BOTH the US and Russia are very friendly to India, with Russia being somewhat of an informal ally. India is still lagging behind China by 2 full decades GDP and productive capabilities wise, they are catching up fast but it will take at least another few decades for them to be even. Without foreign aid India has no hope of taking on China conventional or nuclear. That being said both of their economies would crash and many are likely to starve to death as neither countries can feed themselves. I feel like the Saudis or some other middle eastern countrie's going to be the winner here, not only are they spared from the nukes, they have unfettered access to the untouched African continent. With their previous wealth and US made amarments, they could easily take over Africa and it's resources.
@@realname4401 if that scenario is true then highfleet lore is gonna be cannon to irl role
@@realname4401 chances are that MAD doctrine has provisions for nuking unaligned countries as well, to prevent competition for the recovering superpowers.
Meanwhile in Brazil: "Mó paz 😎👍"
tf is a mopaz
@IC3XR That directly translates (about) to "Helluva peace"
@@The_Hanged-Man ohhh
Basically western civilization wiping itself out. Genius
Are you calling Russia western?
@@Zander10102 You know the most important part of Russia is in the west right? The rest is unfertile land that barely anyone lives on.
1:15 the giant awakes
The moment death bites down on the northern hemisphere
The russian ICBM gonna fried us all dawg, we don't have fancy bunker....
@@PoopMcdinglefart_The13th lol yeah
@@franciscoguinledebarros4429 yup
and then shits himself
Si, Latinoamérica no es un mal sitio después de todo
Nos vamos pa allá compa, llévenme a latam
10 MILLION LIVES!
Okay guys I'm moving to Australia
Australis also has Nuke Sub now. So, in the updated version, you guys won't get spared.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365it’s a nuclear powered submarine
Show this video to anyone who doesn't think it's worth the money to upgrade nuclear infrastructure.
If I get my hands on the launch codes, I won't even tell you. Trust me. Humans, are, parasitic to Earth.
Pffffff, as if a nuclear bunker will help you in this day and age.
Are you that dumb to not realize that russia has the capabilities to make hypersonic missiles? Those missiles were able to destroy an NATO command bunker in ukraine, so don't think they'd not modify nukes to have said properties.
And the USA is only researching those just now.
I mean, if you wanna gamble, then alright. Don't expect to come out on top though, like any brain dead hollyweird, propagandist movie/game/entertainment would make out to be, as if USA would still somehow survive.
Actually, none of us would. Not even russia. Because once nuclear war starts, you better start praying hard to god and hope that you have repented for your sins, because that bunker will be destroyed, and will be flooded with radiation, if not something even worse, like, say, cobalt 60.
So. Still wanna gamble? Real life is much, MUCH different than what you see in the movies. Or games. Or any other piece of entertainment.
@@Wake_up._This_isnt_your_world Is the NATO command bunker in the room with us right now?
@@Wake_up._This_isnt_your_world dude I assume that nobody fucks you, but somehow you still tearing your ass apart, stop it and shut up
Mexicans watching refugees from USA at the border: Oh how the tables have turned, eh gringo?
Let me assure you that Mexico, along with virtually every other country, is royally fucked in the event of a nuclear war between major powers.
Not to worry, the simulation is only concerned with west asia, europe and north america. Let me assure you that Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, China, Japan, Australia among others will have their major population centers targeted aswell.
@@theterribleanimator1793 make no sense if they have no enemies
@@someguy4844 nah, they gonna get it.
@@someguy4844 the 20 year nuclear winter might be worse than dying in the explosion
1:17 america has awakened
USA:we finally destroyed Lithuania
Sprunkis: *not for long*
south africa chilling
So Rhodesia and South Africa would be the U.S. of Africa from now on presumably?
It will be even chiller once nuclear winter sets in. Perhaps radioactive dust can be used for heating, if anybody can filler it out of breathing air.
@@mirasmussabekov4897 well since it's Africa I can expect there +- European winter
Canada and Alaska, meanwhile, are watching this and eating popcorn🍿
Norway, Sweden and Finland is getting to see lots of ICBMs flying over
Not seen in this simulation: the Alaskan, coastal, and Pacific land-based chemical laser anti ICBM systems that don't and haven't existed since the 80's because treaties say they're not supposed to exist. Just like treaties said biological weapons aren't supposed to exist, which was why weaponized smallpox and yersinia pestis never existed
I expect they'll stop some, but not all.
If they could stop all, you'd want to show them off to demonstrate the inefficacy of a nuclear attack on you...
@@theregalproletariat not necessarily. If you're not supposed to have something in the first place, you're not going to show it off. Furthermore, you don't want your enemy aware of your capability so that they could develop countermeasures. Finally, unexpectedly shooting down an entire enemy ICBM launch allows for crazy surrender negotiations since you would 100% be justified in returning fire due to an act of literal attempted genocide, so basically they would have to do whatever you say or get nuked, and you could do it with minimal third party diplomatic blowback-that would not be the case if you just exposed it and then tried to extort things without provocation. Or maybe it has a 99% success rate but a single nuke getting through can mean millions dead, so you still don't want to risk escalation.
Anyways the point is there's lots of reasons to keep such a system close to your chest.
@@jadedandbitter True, actually. I rescind my point...
Imaginary weapons won't stop nukes, kiddo
@@KissatenYoba so, you know the US has officially admitted to possessing 1MW chem lasers in 1979, which means we most likely had them 5 years prior. They shot down satellites with these lasers; ICBMs have trajectories and speeds similar to a satellite. Now imagine you're an AF general in 1980. You have a weapon in your hands with the capability of shooting down an ICBM, and you know thanks to your countries' possession of submarine based ICBMs MAD is all but guaranteed, so invasion will never happen and the only real threat to US security is nuclear and chemical weapons.
In what universe do you NOT have the only military weakness your country has immediately addressed with the tech you already have on hand? Like, to an overwhelming level of security? Especially considering that you just got a president more than willing to break nuclear treaties? All you need is funding-oh wait, wasn't there this big defense program in 80's whose stated goal was space based anti-ICBM lasers, with hundreds of billions of dollars (in 80's money) just disappearing into that program, even though it was supposedly unsuccessful? What if it actually was successful, and the only thing different was that the lasers were ground based?
good idea
Ah shit, here we go again....
I'm glad Florida is fine.
*Florida vs eastern Siberia jojo reference*
Florida man capable of surviving nuclear war
JUDGEMENT DAy!!!! WYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!
Skynet will note this
"Once time begins again, I wonder if even your missile defense can deflect so many MIRVs."
This goes so hard
Other world 😎🍿