|
| 13 Aug 2016 04:23 PM |
It's 1963, you live in the suburbs of New York, and you are only 40 miles away from New York City. Unlike the rest of your neighborhood, you built a fallout shelter in your basement, perfectly capable of holding 4 people. Those four people however, are your family (including yourself). At 8:30 PM, you receive word from a radio broadcast that nuclear warheads were fired from Russia and going to hit the Easter Seaboard. Seeing as how NYC is a major city, the surrounding area (including your neighborhood) would be in the blast radius (including nuclear fallout). The whole neighborhood is warned about impending nuclear annihilation, and everyone begins gathering food and water. You and your family (with sufficient food, water, medical supplies, etc.) move into the fallout shelter and lock the door. At 8:40, one of your neighbors arrives at the door to the shelter, begging to be let inside. He and his family of 3 are begging to be let inside. Minutes later, more neighbors arrive. People you've shared time with and have cared about. The bomb is almost minutes away, there are neighbors at your door banging on it, screaming and pleading to be let inside.
Do you let them in?
(Based on the episode of the Twilight Zone "The Shelter")
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2016 04:26 PM |
| Shove them all inside and hold them at gunpoint to get out after the blast. Screw radioactivity. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2016 04:30 PM |
| No. I would not even let my family in. Just let me and my GF survive listening to their screams of agony. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| 13 Aug 2016 04:37 PM |
Yes, I would. Depending on the size of the bomb, nuclear fallout wouldn't actually be that long-lasting. Small bombs produce longer-lasting fallout, larger ones only cause short-term nuclear fallout. Based off of your blast radius of the bomb (40 miles), this is even larger than the most powerful nuclear bomb ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba. It only had a fireball radius of one and half miles, and the total blast radius was 8 miles. The Tsar Bomba had a very short nuclear fallout, so this one, being over 4x larger in blast radius, would have an even shorter-term fallout. Nuclear bombs are designed to deliver their energy and nuclear payload very quickly. A long-lasting nuclear fallout is simply inefficient, as it draws away from the explosive payload. As a result, nuclear fallout as a result of an atomic bomb isn't too terrible, even in smaller bombs. What WOULD make it dangerous is if there was a nuclear power-plant nearby, as nuclear power-plants are designed to release their energy slowly. Nuclear meltdowns can cause nuclear fallouts that last hundreds, even THOUSANDS of years. But you never specified that there was one in the vicinity, so that's eliminated from the risk factors. That being said, my shelter and its supplies don't have to be particularly long-lasting. Me, my family, and my neighbors would only have to survive until the relatively short fallout dies down enough to where short supply runs wouldn't increase our chances of radiation sickness or cancer much. By keeping my neighbors alive, I'm essentially putting more boots on the ground for when I need to scavenge for more survival supplies. It's a win-win.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2016 04:37 PM |
Letting in more people would only prolong the inevitable as the fallout shelter was designed with only one family in mind. The space would be packed and food rations would deplete fast, resulting with everyone in the shelter slowly starving.
Noot-noot |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 13 Aug 2016 04:40 PM |
i do not even if it's my closest friend i put family before friends, but if i could, i would sacrifice myself so one person can fit inside this bunker |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
0356
|
  |
| Joined: 20 Aug 2012 |
| Total Posts: 26 |
|
|
| 13 Aug 2016 08:28 PM |
| Id just keep myself and let them die outside because my neighbors are weaboos. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Frickhead
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Jun 2016 |
| Total Posts: 610 |
|
|
| 13 Aug 2016 08:30 PM |
Huh. I watched that episode very recently. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2016 08:32 PM |
| Answer to your question: No, because morals are a spook :) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2016 08:37 PM |
No.
If the supplies were only to last the average American family of 4 for about as long as the radioactivity outside were to lessen to a less lethal extent, food rations would not be enough for us all and conflict would occur in order to who gets food/water and who doesn't.
However, if the supplies were enough to last for everyone, I would most definitely let some in. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2016 09:44 PM |
"If the supplies were only to last the average American family of 4 for about as long as the radioactivity outside were to lessen to a less lethal extent, food rations would not be enough for us all and conflict would occur in order to who gets food/water and who doesn't."
Radiation for large nukes (which this one is) decreases VERY quickly post-detonation. Within 2 days, it could be down to 100 rads an hour. This is less than one gray an hour. Within two weeks, it would be down to 10 rads an hour, which is 0.1 gray. If you ration your food, four people worth of food could easily last you that long. At that point, you could make VERY quick runs for supplies. But as you said, it would be very difficult to find clean food and water.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 13 Aug 2016 09:45 PM |
blah blah blah, i couldn't read through a sentence of this
just let them die |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|