Comments on: Top 15 Best Nuclear War Movies http://listverse.com/2008/12/04/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/ Ultimate Top 10 Lists - Listverse Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:11:23 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: mobius999 http://listverse.com/2008/12/04/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-225462 mobius999 Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:10:14 +0000 http://listverse.com/movies/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-225462 So many uninformed people posting here... It's almost as entertaining as the movies themselves. I wont go into tons of detail, just contest a few laughable comments. 1. "5 megatons is NOTHING! We haz bombs now to crack the world's crust!" Completely false and opposite from the truth. The size of warheads grew through the 50s and part of the 60s for one reason. Inaccuracy. Older missles had a CEP (circular error probability) measured in KILOMETERS! They were expected to hit miles off target, therefore had to have a huge warhead to have any chance of destroying hardened targets at a distance. US warheads started DEcreasing in the late 60s, continuing on the trend as our CEP grew smaller until with the advent of the Trident 1 in the 80s, we hit what is known as "first strike" capability. That means we had confidence of our missles hitting their missles before they could launch, on the dime. Think we have 5 megaton missles? Nope. Trident has a CEP of 5 meters, and 100k (1/10 a megaton) MIRV warheads. The soviets continued with larger warheads for a time into the early 80s as they lagged in CEP, the largest being the SS-18 "Satan" with a 25MT single warhead. They were decommissioned early because they were a maintenance nightmare, and thought the warhead was large, they were inaccurate and completely pointless in modern deterrance. 2. "ICBMS are a myth. Propoganda. We dismantled ours in the 80s. They were only good for a few years, fuel had a shelflife" This one is amusing. I guess you missed the new class of ICBM the US developed and fielded in the 80s then, the MX Peacekeeper, of which at last count, we have over 200 active silos and 1600 warheads. Or the Trident D5 SLBM, which was mid 80s and stands as an entire 3rd of our current nuclear deterrent. I've seen them, touched them, know people involved in building them. No myth, I assure you. In regards to fuel, there's 2 kinds. Liquid, which is older technology, and was used the the USSR through most of the Cold War (and the US into the 80s) isn't even IN the missles until shortly before launch. It's not one piece, can be changed easily. Solid propellant, which must be what you are talking about, can last decades before generating cracks that might make the missle unstable. I'm sure I missed some here, but the two people going back and forth here just made me laugh with how clueless they both were. Now, for the reason I was even here, thanks for the list! I saw By Dawns Early Light when it came out, have been trying to think of the name for years now so I could torrent it and watch again! So many uninformed people posting here… It’s almost as entertaining as the movies themselves.

I wont go into tons of detail, just contest a few laughable comments.

1. “5 megatons is NOTHING! We haz bombs now to crack the world’s crust!”

Completely false and opposite from the truth. The size of warheads grew through the 50s and part of the 60s for one reason. Inaccuracy. Older missles had a CEP (circular error probability) measured in KILOMETERS! They were expected to hit miles off target, therefore had to have a huge warhead to have any chance of destroying hardened targets at a distance.

US warheads started DEcreasing in the late 60s, continuing on the trend as our CEP grew smaller until with the advent of the Trident 1 in the 80s, we hit what is known as “first strike” capability. That means we had confidence of our missles hitting their missles before they could launch, on the dime.

Think we have 5 megaton missles? Nope. Trident has a CEP of 5 meters, and 100k (1/10 a megaton) MIRV warheads.

The soviets continued with larger warheads for a time into the early 80s as they lagged in CEP, the largest being the SS-18 “Satan” with a 25MT single warhead. They were decommissioned early because they were a maintenance nightmare, and thought the warhead was large, they were inaccurate and completely pointless in modern deterrance.

2. “ICBMS are a myth. Propoganda. We dismantled ours in the 80s. They were only good for a few years, fuel had a shelflife”

This one is amusing. I guess you missed the new class of ICBM the US developed and fielded in the 80s then, the MX Peacekeeper, of which at last count, we have over 200 active silos and 1600 warheads. Or the Trident D5 SLBM, which was mid 80s and stands as an entire 3rd of our current nuclear deterrent.

I’ve seen them, touched them, know people involved in building them. No myth, I assure you.

In regards to fuel, there’s 2 kinds. Liquid, which is older technology, and was used the the USSR through most of the Cold War (and the US into the 80s) isn’t even IN the missles until shortly before launch. It’s not one piece, can be changed easily.

Solid propellant, which must be what you are talking about, can last decades before generating cracks that might make the missle unstable.

I’m sure I missed some here, but the two people going back and forth here just made me laugh with how clueless they both were.

Now, for the reason I was even here, thanks for the list! I saw By Dawns Early Light when it came out, have been trying to think of the name for years now so I could torrent it and watch again!

]]> By: amasimp http://listverse.com/2008/12/04/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-219440 amasimp Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:26:20 +0000 http://listverse.com/movies/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-219440 Interesting bit of trivia on "The Day After": During the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty at Reykjavik, Meyer received a telegram from President Reagan that said, 'Don't think your movie didn't have any part of this, because it did" Interesting bit of trivia on “The Day After”: During the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty at Reykjavik, Meyer received a telegram from President Reagan that said, ‘Don’t think your movie didn’t have any part of this, because it did”

]]> By: Welshguy http://listverse.com/2008/12/04/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-209546 Welshguy Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:20:07 +0000 http://listverse.com/movies/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-209546 I'm a former defence and intelligence analyst who worked on NATO/Warsaw Pact war scenarios during the 1980s. I have to agree with posting 188 ('Maniacalnuker') that, no, even an uncontrolled nuclear exchange (euphemistically called a 'Spasm') would not have heralded the 'end of the world'. Europe, the former Soviet Union, North America and possibly China/SE Asia (if they got involved) would have suffered huge levels of damage. However, the rest of the world would have remained intact, although with severely disrupted economies. My own small country, the UK, would have suffered very, very badly - the movie 'Threads' is pretty accurate I think. Note however that even in Threads, UK society continued, albeit at levels of extreme poverty like the worst of the Third World today. And this sort of nuclear exchange was always unlikely. Nuclear war is of course awful - but its not the end of everything. Conventional war, remember, is also dreadful - it was conventional war that gave us the bombing horrors of World War Two, Vietnam and subsequent so-called 'peacetime' operations against Iraq , etc. Also you don't need nuclear weapons to be beastly; a machete will do. Think of the Rwandan genocide. And people will always fight wars; we're programmed to use violence when it suits us. So forget about trying to ban war and avoid possible use of nuclear weapons by playing the 'end of the world' or 'too dreadful to contemplate' arguments; concentrate instead on inculcating personal morality so that our individual behaviour is as good as we can get it whether or not we're in a war. I’m a former defence and intelligence analyst who worked on NATO/Warsaw Pact war scenarios during the 1980s. I have to agree with posting 188 (‘Maniacalnuker’) that, no, even an uncontrolled nuclear exchange (euphemistically called a ‘Spasm’) would not have heralded the ‘end of the world’. Europe, the former Soviet Union, North America and possibly China/SE Asia (if they got involved) would have suffered huge levels of damage. However, the rest of the world would have remained intact, although with severely disrupted economies. My own small country, the UK, would have suffered very, very badly – the movie ‘Threads’ is pretty accurate I think. Note however that even in Threads, UK society continued, albeit at levels of extreme poverty like the worst of the Third World today. And this sort of nuclear exchange was always unlikely. Nuclear war is of course awful – but its not the end of everything. Conventional war, remember, is also dreadful – it was conventional war that gave us the bombing horrors of World War Two, Vietnam and subsequent so-called ‘peacetime’ operations against Iraq , etc. Also you don’t need nuclear weapons to be beastly; a machete will do. Think of the Rwandan genocide. And people will always fight wars; we’re programmed to use violence when it suits us. So forget about trying to ban war and avoid possible use of nuclear weapons by playing the ‘end of the world’ or ‘too dreadful to contemplate’ arguments; concentrate instead on inculcating personal morality so that our individual behaviour is as good as we can get it whether or not we’re in a war.

]]> By: Johnboy http://listverse.com/2008/12/04/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-208973 Johnboy Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:33:00 +0000 http://listverse.com/movies/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-208973 Ok I'm clearly mad. I bought threads and watched it today. I still can't get to sleep I'm crapping it so much! It truly is a disturbing film and I got to thinking the reality would be even worse as chances are my little old country wouldn't take too many hits to be totally obliterated. It doesn't reassure me tjhat the ussr I'd no more. China and north Korea are way scarier! Plus, sorry to offend my cousins across the pond, the USA spends too much time and effort provoking other nations instead of keeping their noses out! What's worse is our uk govnment goes along with them . Here I cite Iraq and Afghanistan! The worlds still a scary dangerous place. Would this happen? Probably not but it could. It takes one looney in the whitehouse with an itchy trigger finger. I am more assured with obamas rhetoric to reduce nuclear arms but still there'd be enough nukes to facilitate M.A.D Ok I’m clearly mad. I bought threads and watched it today. I still can’t get to sleep I’m crapping it so much! It truly is a disturbing film and I got to thinking the reality would be even worse as chances are my little old country wouldn’t take too many hits to be totally obliterated. It doesn’t reassure me tjhat the ussr I’d no more. China and north Korea are way scarier! Plus, sorry to offend my cousins across the pond, the USA spends too much time and effort provoking other nations instead of keeping their noses out! What’s worse is our uk govnment goes along with them . Here I cite Iraq and Afghanistan! The worlds still a scary dangerous place. Would this happen? Probably not but it could. It takes one looney in the whitehouse with an itchy trigger finger. I am more assured with obamas rhetoric to reduce nuclear arms but still there’d be enough nukes to facilitate M.A.D

]]> By: johnboy http://listverse.com/2008/12/04/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-206840 johnboy Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:58:35 +0000 http://listverse.com/movies/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-206840 i only saw threads once back when it was broadcast the first time on bbc. it scared the life out of me then, it did again when i watched this clip! my heart was racing. its your worst nightmare and the film captures it brilliantly! i only saw threads once back when it was broadcast the first time on bbc. it scared the life out of me then, it did again when i watched this clip! my heart was racing. its your worst nightmare and the film captures it brilliantly!

]]> By: Maniacalnuker http://listverse.com/2008/12/04/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-198870 Maniacalnuker Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:22:34 +0000 http://listverse.com/movies/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-198870 No, just no. It wouldn´t have been "the end of the world". An all out thermonuclear war in the 80s(worst case scenario) would have directly destroyed hundreds of millions and nuclear winter wipe out hundreds of millions to a billion more but there would still be billions of survivors. Most of the Earth WOULD remain livable, most of the continents(30% of the Earth) would remain livable after the nuclear winter. Only densely urbanised/industrialised countries would become mostly unlivable (england, belgium, Holland) but even there, there would still be millions of survivors although among the least favourised ones. Many would fall like flies, granted but certainly not all, the grimest momments of history teaches that. Be it from WW2, 80s Ethiopia or Germany of the 1660s (where 50% of the population perished in the old ways of warfare, swords and gunpowder). Things similar to nuclear winter HAVE happened in the past (at least one during the age of prehistorical hunter-gatherer tribes). One is preparing under Yellowstone right now. So life would go on, in fact, with drastical reduction of population/developpement/pollution/exploitation, nature would be better off in the long run. Given decades new cities would be built, within 50-75 years, some would be quiet comparable in size and individual landmarks as our world´s major cities. But such world would be an alien one, different mentalities, philosophie, societies etc. They might admire or hate the time before but their view óf it would be completely different than the ones we know. No, just no. It wouldn´t have been “the end of the world”. An all out thermonuclear war in the 80s(worst case scenario) would have directly destroyed hundreds of millions and nuclear winter wipe out hundreds of millions to a billion more but there would still be billions of survivors. Most of the Earth WOULD remain livable, most of the continents(30% of the Earth) would remain livable after the nuclear winter. Only densely urbanised/industrialised countries would become mostly unlivable (england, belgium, Holland) but even there, there would still be millions of survivors although among the least favourised ones. Many would fall like flies, granted but certainly not all, the grimest momments of history teaches that. Be it from WW2, 80s Ethiopia or Germany of the 1660s (where 50% of the population perished in the old ways of warfare, swords and gunpowder).
Things similar to nuclear winter HAVE happened in the past (at least one during the age of prehistorical hunter-gatherer tribes). One is preparing under Yellowstone right now. So life would go on, in fact, with drastical reduction of population/developpement/pollution/exploitation, nature would be better off in the long run.
Given decades new cities would be built, within 50-75 years, some would be quiet comparable in size and individual landmarks as our world´s major cities.

But such world would be an alien one, different mentalities, philosophie, societies etc. They might admire or hate the time before but their view óf it would be completely different than the ones we know.

]]> By: Maniacalnuker http://listverse.com/2008/12/04/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-198850 Maniacalnuker Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:02:16 +0000 http://listverse.com/movies/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-198850 Jessy December 6th, 2008 at 4:18 am "-Nowadays, bombs are MUCH bigger and MUCH more powerful- the specific numbers escape me at the moment, but there are nukes in existence that can crack the earth’s crust. That means powerful enough to break the freaking planet. Ain’t no one living through that." *Facepalming* Except for time travel and psychic blast, "Terminator" and "Akira" are way more realistic than "At the beatch", why? Because they at least didn´t FAIL THEIR PHYSICS! Jessy
December 6th, 2008 at 4:18 am

“-Nowadays, bombs are MUCH bigger and MUCH more powerful- the specific numbers escape me at the moment, but there are nukes in existence that can crack the earth’s crust. That means powerful enough to break the freaking planet. Ain’t no one living through that.”

*Facepalming*

Except for time travel and psychic blast, “Terminator” and “Akira” are way more realistic than “At the beatch”, why? Because they at least didn´t FAIL THEIR PHYSICS!

]]> By: sparkyt http://listverse.com/2008/12/04/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-197844 sparkyt Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:06:25 +0000 http://listverse.com/movies/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-197844 nukem all nukem all

]]> By: cody http://listverse.com/2008/12/04/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-195916 cody Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:06:51 +0000 http://listverse.com/movies/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-195916 terminator 1 or 2 should be there. terminator 1 or 2 should be there.

]]> By: kdawg http://listverse.com/2008/12/04/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-184171 kdawg Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:32:14 +0000 http://listverse.com/movies/top-15-best-nuclear-war-movies/#comment-184171 i saw the day after at my school after having to read alas babylon (blarg!!! horrible book) any way, when we where watching the attack scene in the day after i got all sad because of the horse and stuff, then i got even more sad because everybody dies in that movie!!! i saw the day after at my school after having to read alas babylon (blarg!!! horrible book) any way, when we where watching the attack scene in the day after i got all sad because of the horse and stuff, then i got even more sad because everybody dies in that movie!!!

]]>