who would last longer.... North vs South

[melthebell]

The only reason the rich would last longer would be because they could afford a bunker for immediate survival.

 

There is people who do have survival instincts on the lower end of the scale, doing physical extremes, eating from bins, being alone, killing people

[Happ]

16 hours ago, prolific said:

imagine there being a world war, nuclear attack, or massive natural disaster...

The vast majority would never be able to envisage such an example so the question and answers are without any merit. As mentioned above, the film “Threads” is probably the most realistic example of nuclear fallout and the aftermath, even decades after it was made.

[ANGELFIRE1]

Hard North v Soft South. Only one winner.

 

Angel1.

[Anna B]

I agree Happ.

Since I was young, when nuclear annihilation was considered to be the end of everything, I've noticed a change in perception to surviving a nuclear war. This is dangerous nonsense.

 

Actually, they can do considerable life threatening damage with cyber attacks. That's what I fear will be the future of warfare.

[jaffa1]

17 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Really?

 

I'm sure those people living in some of the poorer parts of sub saharan Africa would be very happy to hear they have utilities at the touch of a button and are surrounded by consumer goods!

 

 

Oh now the conversation changes to Africa, I thought the OP was talking UK.

 

[Longcol]

Cornwall, west Wales and north Scotland & the Western Isles would probably be the best places to survive a catastrophe.

[FinBak]

The North. 

[mickey finn]

There would be little left round these parts, I can think of at least six big targets that are so close to Sheffield the blast areas would be overlapping, in fact many cities, Sheffield included, would be hit by more than one warhead, but as said earlier the further up north you go the better your short term chances are, ultimately though you can expect a severely shortened lifespan.

[I1L2T3]

22 minutes ago, mickey finn said:

There would be little left round these parts, I can think of at least six big targets that are so close to Sheffield the blast areas would be overlapping, in fact many cities, Sheffield included, would be hit by more than one warhead, but as said earlier the further up north you go the better your short term chances are, ultimately though you can expect a severely shortened lifespan.

I remember once reading that Sheffield would get two in the East of the city: one south of where Meadowhall is now to knock out industry and major north south road communications, a further north to ensure that north south road communication is cut. One in the city centre and one in the south west of the city to take out railways lines south and west. Finningly would have been hit too. Redundancy would be built into the attack plan with most targets assigned multiple warheads.

 

There would be hardly anything or anybody left.

Edited March 31, 2019 by I1L2T3

[K1Machine]

20 hours ago, retep said:

Ever tried eating a credit/bank card?

Oh, I forgot. The rich and privileged measure their wealth by the size of their debit card.