• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Thought Experiment: The Fallout Shelter

Out of curiosity, what do you think war is?
war is one "group" against another

Are all soldiers psychopaths?
no most soldiers are not psychopaths, but they are for the most part followers by psychological profile...how far they manage to go up the ladder depends upon ability to distinguish one's self due to cool thinking and IQ

here in this interaction between us you have made my point for me repeatedly...."group", "group", tribe, tribe, society

Would it be better to be conquered, or killed by the enemy, than to kill "innocents" in battle?
if one is the aggressor one has already decided that they are willing to kill innocents....if one is attacked there are no innocents, it is kill or be killed

(see the difference)



This scenario really isn't all that different. The "enemy" in question simply happens to be time and the lack of resources rather than an actual entity.
no actually there is another enemy and that is the enemy within...what is one willing to do to another human being within one's "group" in order to survive....there will be various answers to that and that is all part of a psychological profile of an individual

hopefully you can see what they were doing


To be fair, "we're all going to starve to death unless we do X," isn't really "arbitrary." It's necessary, and rational.
starvation is not imminent....fear of starvation is for some...that makes some people rash

rash leaders get people killed unnecessary...one can not have leaders who are rash

in this particular instance there is not enough information to make any decision or the group will collapse and die



New Scientist - How warfare shaped human evolution

Summarized: In the course of our evolution, human beings had to compete for resources, as all animals do. While social living and cooperation between individuals helps to mitigate that to a certain extent, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that not all human beings can belong to the same social group. We're just not wired that way. For that reason, competition between different groups over the same resources becomes inevitable after a certain point. That competition, inevitably, becomes violent.

Smarter, more efficient, more organized, and more ruthless groups tend to win out over groups less developed in those traits, so those groups survived where other groups did not. They also passed on their genes to subsequent generations, so those traits became more common in the human species as a whole.
"groups"....that was a study in group dynamics ;)


That is a luxury which the resources and infrastructure at our disposal provides. The scenario presupposes that such luxury no longer exists.
which is exactly why no fast arbitrary life or death decision can be made....EVER


Which might very include sacrificing yourself for the greater good of the group as a whole.
it might come to that at a certain point for the benefit and survival of the "group"...but walking out that door for this ragtag group at this point, or sending anyone out would be stupid in the extreme



Ummm... Actually, from what I've read, a lot of people in the camps were basically willing to murder one another over bread crumbs, and a disproportionate number of survivors were either skilled laborers, or "trustees" of sorts, who basically worked with the Nazis to avoid the gas chambers and get better treatment.
yes and they were not the survivors long term
There's no shame in that. You do what you have to do to survive under such circumstances. :shrug:
no shame? I say there is shame and a lack of understanding about human beings, their nature and what it truly takes to survive

luckily this was just an experiment to watch you interact...who bullies the group..who takes control, do they override quieter more rational ideas, it all is extremely important to understand how each individual will react under extreme stress

i just did one of these at work...our scenario was different...our cruise boat had exploded and a group of us had one raft and a bunch of supplies...
 
A nuclear holocaust has occurred. You and a small group of eleven fellow survivors have managed to procure a shelter stocked with food and medical supplies. As far as you are aware, your group represents the last living human beings on planet Earth.

However, you have a problem. The shelter's supplies are limited, and your group is too large for the supplies on hand to support. With a population of six, and only limited rationing, your supplies can last five years. With all twelve persons (including yourself), on the other hand, the supplies will only last two years. If you ration your supplies strictly, you can save one additional person, for a total of seven, but the health of the group as a whole will suffer (note: if you're creative, it might be possible to stretch those rations further, in order to either save one additional person, for a total of eight, or alleviate the health impacts of saving seven, but I will not say how ;) ).

According to the expert in your group, radiation levels should be low enough to make it safe to exit the shelter in four years. It will take roughly a year to grow crops after that point.

Your group consists of the following:

One high-ranking military officer, male, age 45. He has advanced survival training, extensive leadership and managerial experience, and rather imposing presence. Unfortunately, however, he also has PTSD. This is manageable at the moment, but could get worse. He is moderately religious.

One nuclear physicist, male, age 30. He is a paraplegic, and somewhat sickly. No survival skills. He is non-religious.


One doctor, male, age 50. He is overweight and has high blood pressure. However, he also has considerable skill with both medicine and basic surgical procedures. He is religious, but non-practicing.

One nurse, female, age 67. She is the picture of good health, but her skills are not quite as great as the doctor in your group. She is devoutly religious.

One single mother, female (obviously), age 24. She is healthy, and has an infant daughter with her. She is presently breast feeding, so that child will not draw supplies (i.e. doesn't count). She is non-practicing religious.

One priest, male (again, obviously), age 42. He is in good health, though he lacks noteworthy survival skills. It should go without saying that he is religious.

One botanist, female, age 34. She has the beginning stages of multiple sclerosis, but is otherwise healthy. She is agnostic.

One transient who managed to sneak in at the last moment, male, age 28. He has demonstrated anti-social tendencies, has a criminal background, and is dependent on alcohol and very likely an illicit substance or two. He is non-religious.

One additional transient who managed to sneak in, female, age 21. Same as the above, romantically connected to the transient male. She was raised religious, but is non-practicing.

One lawyer, female, age 36. Highly intelligent, and she is in good health. However, she lacks survival skills, and does not get along with the military officer due to her political views. She is non-religious.


One unemployed layabout, male, age 26. He is in good health, and reasonably fit from a physical perspective, but he has no skills whatsoever. He is non-religious.

So...

Who lives and who dies? What is your reasoning for that decision? What is your endgame?

This was actually a group exercise we were given at Warrant Officer Candidate School. Needless to say, things got pretty damn dark in a hurry. :lol:

I'll be interested to see how civilians tackle the issue.

That's not even hard. Me, the Dr. and the four women of child-bearing age. I'd spend my time learning medicine from the Dr. and teaching survival skills to everyone else.
 
yeah, so give us the military's standard operating procedure where you have 11 troops in a fallout shelter with provisions for 6. I am sure it will go totally smoothly when 4 of them are ordered to lay down and be eaten by the rest, in order to stretch the rations

Did anyone in your class even go into details on how to kill off the others without resistance to the point everyone is left dead? What kind of deals, brutality, and back stabbing would be necessary?

Ever hear of the Birkenhead drill?
 
Gathomas88 said:
Keep in mind, if you maintain a group of 12, you'll be burning through supplies at roughly twice the rate specified by the "everyone survives for five years" plan. That means you'll run out twice as quickly.

It's unlikely in the extreme that literally nothing could be done to stretch supplies, create new ones, or reduce the need for such longevity.

Gathomas88 said:
Suppose you do keep everyone for a year or two, only to ultimately find that there really are no other alternatives, and that you have no other choice but to kick people out in order to preserve supplies.

Then we'd all have to have a discussion about what to do. One of my first priorities, starting day one, would be to develop radiation shielding from whatever we have on hand. Alpha and beta radiation can be blocked with some fairly thin materials--Alpha can be blocked with a few sheets of paper.

The point being, some might have to leave the shelter early, but could do so to find supplies and bring them back. But I suppose in the even that literally nothing could be done, and no one volunteered to lay down their lives, it would probably be the case that there would be a fight for survival.

My point in answering the question is that such a possibility is both very slim, and also worth risking, when compared to the alternatives.
 
Anywho.... it is highly improbable you'd need to stay in a radiation shelter for four years. Four weeks maybe.


Normal fallout decay profile, even if you started off with very heavy fallout the outdoors would be survivable for limited periods within two weeks, and completely livable after 14 weeks.


That's assuming the fallout wasn't deliberately seeded with long-lived radioactives in substantial quantity.
 
war is one "group" against another

And it usually requires sacrificing members of your own group in order to be successful. That's kind of the whole point here.

Particularly as a leader, and especially thinking on a strategic, rather than necessarily tactical, level, you might very well have to send men into situations that you know will either most likely get them killed, or do so as an absolute certainty. This can range anywhere from choosing the person on a team who has to take "point" while clearing a room (i.e. the first man through the door, and therefore the one most likely to catch a face full of 7.62 rounds), to the age old "most expendable person takes their gas mask off first to see if the air is safe to breathe" strategy used when dealing with chemical attacks, to sacrificing entire units as distractions so that other units may move in around the flank to make the kill, or sacrificing them as a "rear guard" so that the rest of the force may have time to escape when and if things go badly and you have to retreat.

There's a certain unavoidable, and rather cold, calculus that goes into warfare. Again, it's really not all that different than what we're discussing here.

no most soldiers are not psychopaths, but they are for the most part followers by psychological profile...how far they manage to go up the ladder depends upon ability to distinguish one's self due to cool thinking and IQ

Okay. Sooo... How about the people who lead them then?

Not trying to beat a dead horse here. I just don't think you're being consistent with your reasoning.

no actually there is another enemy and that is the enemy within...what is one willing to do to another human being within one's "group" in order to survive....there will be various answers to that and that is all part of a psychological profile of an individual

hopefully you can see what they were doing

starvation is not imminent....

Ummm... Yeah, it is. The scenario makes it explicitly clear that the group will run out of food within a certain amount of time unless certain actions are taken.

in this particular instance there is not enough information to make any decision

By definition, yes, there is. The point is to see whether the person reading it has the gumption to make the decisions that information dictates as being necessary.

yes and they were not the survivors long term

Many of them were, actually.

luckily this was just an experiment to watch you interact...who bullies the group..who takes control, do they override quieter more rational ideas, it all is extremely important to understand how each individual will react under extreme stress

i just did one of these at work...our scenario was different...our cruise boat had exploded and a group of us had one raft and a bunch of supplies...

In any eventuality, it would appear that our thought processes on this are fundamentally incompatible. That certainly is the kind of thing the exercise is meant to gauge.

It's unlikely in the extreme that literally nothing could be done to stretch supplies, create new ones, or reduce the need for such longevity.

Then we'd all have to have a discussion about what to do. One of my first priorities, starting day one, would be to develop radiation shielding from whatever we have on hand. Alpha and beta radiation can be blocked with some fairly thin materials--Alpha can be blocked with a few sheets of paper.

The point being, some might have to leave the shelter early, but could do so to find supplies and bring them back. But I suppose in the even that literally nothing could be done, and no one volunteered to lay down their lives, it would probably be the case that there would be a fight for survival.

My point in answering the question is that such a possibility is both very slim, and also worth risking, when compared to the alternatives.

Anywho.... it is highly improbable you'd need to stay in a radiation shelter for four years. Four weeks maybe.


Normal fallout decay profile, even if you started off with very heavy fallout the outdoors would be survivable for limited periods within two weeks, and completely livable after 14 weeks.


That's assuming the fallout wasn't deliberately seeded with long-lived radioactives in substantial quantity.

No offense intended to anyone, but I think we're getting a bit too far into the weeds regarding speculative outcomes here.

The parameters of the exercise were set in the OP. You're not really supposed to replace them with your own. That's cheating. :2razz:
 
No offense intended to anyone, but I think we're getting a bit too far into the weeds regarding speculative outcomes here.

The parameters of the exercise were set in the OP. You're not really supposed to replace them with your own. That's cheating. :2razz:



You postulated a survival situation. The very FIRST thing I do in any survival or combat situation is think "How can I cheat?" :D


Or perhaps more accurately, "How can I alter the circumstances to be more in my favor, how do I bend the rules to my benefit, how do I turn this thing sideways and find an escape hatch that wasn't supposed to be there?"


When given a tactical exercise that involved Team A having to patrol a wooded trail and Team B which would set up an ambush along said trail, my first thought as team A leader was "Well, we're not going up the darn trail, that's for sure." :D
 
It seems odd that in a group of 12 survivors, I would be the sole arbitrator of who lives and who dies. But, I guess it worked out that way.

Goners:

The 45 y/o high ranking military officer. I've already out ranked him in the shelter, plus he might be part of what caused this rather unpleasant holocaustal war. He can take with him:

The 36 y/o female lawyer that he's been arguing with. That will give them something to do outside.

The 50 y/o fat doctor. Even if he has his black bag he's not likely to be carrying a pharmacy around with him. Worthless under the circumstances.

The 42 y/o priest. I won't be feel like praying the rosary anytime soon.

The 34 y/o female botanist. I have two close friends with MS. It's a terrible disease. She will be bed ridden before 4 years time and require constant care. If she knows what I know, she would thank me.

The 67 y/o female nurse. She's had a good long life.



The physicist can teach the transient how to make alcohol for himself and me.
Everyone else seems to have good cabin-fever skills. We'll eat, drink and be merry. Hopefully there are some good seed packages waiting for the planting season.
 
A nuclear holocaust has occurred. You and a small group of eleven fellow survivors have managed to procure a shelter stocked with food and medical supplies. As far as you are aware, your group represents the last living human beings on planet Earth.

However, you have a problem. The shelter's supplies are limited, and your group is too large for the supplies on hand to support. With a population of six, and only limited rationing, your supplies can last five years. With all twelve persons (including yourself), on the other hand, the supplies will only last two years. If you ration your supplies strictly, you can save one additional person, for a total of seven, but the health of the group as a whole will suffer (note: if you're creative, it might be possible to stretch those rations further, in order to either save one additional person, for a total of eight, or alleviate the health impacts of saving seven, but I will not say how ;) ).

According to the expert in your group, radiation levels should be low enough to make it safe to exit the shelter in four years. It will take roughly a year to grow crops after that point.

Your group consists of the following:

One high-ranking military officer, male, age 45. He has advanced survival training, extensive leadership and managerial experience, and rather imposing presence. Unfortunately, however, he also has PTSD. This is manageable at the moment, but could get worse. He is moderately religious.

One nuclear physicist, male, age 30. He is a paraplegic, and somewhat sickly. No survival skills. He is non-religious.

One doctor, male, age 50. He is overweight and has high blood pressure. However, he also has considerable skill with both medicine and basic surgical procedures. He is religious, but non-practicing.

One nurse, female, age 67. She is the picture of good health, but her skills are not quite as great as the doctor in your group. She is devoutly religious.

One single mother, female (obviously), age 24. She is healthy, and has an infant daughter with her. She is presently breast feeding, so that child will not draw supplies (i.e. doesn't count). She is non-practicing religious.

One priest, male (again, obviously), age 42. He is in good health, though he lacks noteworthy survival skills. It should go without saying that he is religious.

One botanist, female, age 34. She has the beginning stages of multiple sclerosis, but is otherwise healthy. She is agnostic.

One transient who managed to sneak in at the last moment, male, age 28. He has demonstrated anti-social tendencies, has a criminal background, and is dependent on alcohol and very likely an illicit substance or two. He is non-religious.

One additional transient who managed to sneak in, female, age 21. Same as the above, romantically connected to the transient male. She was raised religious, but is non-practicing.

One lawyer, female, age 36. Highly intelligent, and she is in good health. However, she lacks survival skills, and does not get along with the military officer due to her political views. She is non-religious.

One unemployed layabout, male, age 26. He is in good health, and reasonably fit from a physical perspective, but he has no skills whatsoever. He is non-religious.

So...

Who lives and who dies? What is your reasoning for that decision? What is your endgame?

This was actually a group exercise we were given at Warrant Officer Candidate School. Needless to say, things got pretty damn dark in a hurry. :lol:

I'll be interested to see how civilians tackle the issue.

My first question is what kind of religious? I know devout Wiccians who are intolerant of other religions, and plenty of devout Christians who are live and let live as long as they can practice as they believe. How the individual reacts to other religions, non-religious, and even differing aspects of their own religion would be a key factor in determining who stays and goes.
 
Shoot everyone but myself. Humanity is already done for.
 
Shoot everyone but myself. Humanity is already done for.

If you are going with that route, might as well shoot all the men, and the women you don't want. At least enjoy your last days. This concept of course reverses for women.
 
If you are going with that route, might as well shoot all the men, and the women you don't want. At least enjoy your last days. This concept of course reverses for women.

How do you know he wouldn't prefer to shoot the women and the men he doesn't want?
 
How do you know he wouldn't prefer to shoot the women and the men he doesn't want?

True enough in and of itself. Although I am probably working off of other past post that gave me the impression he'd prefer the women. I will admit I could be wrong, or mixing members up.
 
If you are going with that route, might as well shoot all the men, and the women you don't want. At least enjoy your last days. This concept of course reverses for women.

How do you know he wouldn't prefer to shoot the women and the men he doesn't want?

True enough in and of itself. Although I am probably working off of other past post that gave me the impression he'd prefer the women. I will admit I could be wrong, or mixing members up.

Well I've just shot several people, including a single mother and a baby, a paraplegic, a priest, and a war hero, so I feel like I'm not getting lucky regardless of gender.
 
A nuclear holocaust has occurred. You and a small group of eleven fellow survivors have managed to procure a shelter stocked with food and medical supplies. As far as you are aware, your group represents the last living human beings on planet Earth.

However, you have a problem. The shelter's supplies are limited, and your group is too large for the supplies on hand to support. With a population of six, and only limited rationing, your supplies can last five years. With all twelve persons (including yourself), on the other hand, the supplies will only last two years. If you ration your supplies strictly, you can save one additional person, for a total of seven, but the health of the group as a whole will suffer (note: if you're creative, it might be possible to stretch those rations further, in order to either save one additional person, for a total of eight, or alleviate the health impacts of saving seven, but I will not say how ;) ).

According to the expert in your group, radiation levels should be low enough to make it safe to exit the shelter in four years. It will take roughly a year to grow crops after that point.

Your group consists of the following:

One high-ranking military officer, male, age 45. He has advanced survival training, extensive leadership and managerial experience, and rather imposing presence. Unfortunately, however, he also has PTSD. This is manageable at the moment, but could get worse. He is moderately religious.

One nuclear physicist, male, age 30. He is a paraplegic, and somewhat sickly. No survival skills. He is non-religious.

One doctor, male, age 50. He is overweight and has high blood pressure. However, he also has considerable skill with both medicine and basic surgical procedures. He is religious, but non-practicing.

One nurse, female, age 67. She is the picture of good health, but her skills are not quite as great as the doctor in your group. She is devoutly religious.

One single mother, female (obviously), age 24. She is healthy, and has an infant daughter with her. She is presently breast feeding, so that child will not draw supplies (i.e. doesn't count). She is non-practicing religious.

One priest, male (again, obviously), age 42. He is in good health, though he lacks noteworthy survival skills. It should go without saying that he is religious.

One botanist, female, age 34. She has the beginning stages of multiple sclerosis, but is otherwise healthy. She is agnostic.

One transient who managed to sneak in at the last moment, male, age 28. He has demonstrated anti-social tendencies, has a criminal background, and is dependent on alcohol and very likely an illicit substance or two. He is non-religious.

One additional transient who managed to sneak in, female, age 21. Same as the above, romantically connected to the transient male. She was raised religious, but is non-practicing.

One lawyer, female, age 36. Highly intelligent, and she is in good health. However, she lacks survival skills, and does not get along with the military officer due to her political views. She is non-religious.

One unemployed layabout, male, age 26. He is in good health, and reasonably fit from a physical perspective, but he has no skills whatsoever. He is non-religious.

So...

Who lives and who dies? What is your reasoning for that decision? What is your endgame?

This was actually a group exercise we were given at Warrant Officer Candidate School. Needless to say, things got pretty damn dark in a hurry. :lol:

I'll be interested to see how civilians tackle the issue.

To everyone who decided the layabout can live, I thank you deeply. You won't regret it.
 
One doctor, need a medical professional

One single mother, young and healthy with an infant daughter...already on the route to repopulation

One botanist, can always use more scientists

One lawyer, relatively young (though when we get out in four years was it? she'll be 40 and pretty much close to the end of reproduction viability), intelligent and malleable.

One unemployed layabout, world needs ditch diggers too

Me, I'm a physicist, so I don't need that nuclear physicist guy hanging about.
 
One doctor, need a medical professional

One single mother, young and healthy with an infant daughter...already on the route to repopulation

One botanist, can always use more scientists

One lawyer, relatively young (though when we get out in four years was it? she'll be 40 and pretty much close to the end of reproduction viability), intelligent and malleable.

One unemployed layabout, world needs ditch diggers too

Me, I'm a physicist, so I don't need that nuclear physicist guy hanging about.

Ok Sheldon but do you really need any of the others? Why not just build a new robot society?
 
Ok Sheldon but do you really need any of the others? Why not just build a new robot society?

Shhhhhh. I need organics at first, but there is a replacement plan. Just don't let the others know.
 
7 hours after explosion the fallout intensity has dropped to 10%; 49 hours (often rounded to "two days") it has fallen to 1%; after 343 hours (often rounded to "two weeks") it is 0.1%; after 14 weeks it is 0.01% and so on.

With those numbers, I'd not kill anyone, wait about a year for the radiation to fall to safe levels, pack everyone up and the rest of the food and move out of the shelter to areas as far away from the targeted areas as we could and start again.

However as a species, if we were the only ones left...we are done for. When talking about setting up a colony on another's planet, you need at least 50 individuals of diverse genetics for the short term survival of the colony. For long term survival, you need 1,000. Since in the scenario we are effectively colonizing our onw planet after a disaster...this applies.

So with 12 of us...that's it for us. We'd live for a while, breed a little bit and after a generation or three...we would be gone.
 
Perhaps. However, it's dubious whether he'd even be able to determine such things without access to a dedicated lab. He's also pretty much worthless apart from that one particular function.

To my mind, at least, it's kind of hard to justify keeping him around on the off chance that he might be useful at some point in the distant future. He most likely won't.

Actually a nuclear physicist is far more useful than you realize. You might want to read up on them: How to Become a Nuclear Physicist: Career Path Guide Pretty sure you're going to need someone with physics and engineering knowledge when you get out of that bunker. He'd probably be able to cut the botanists time in growing edible plants by half. He'd probably even be able to help her grow food inside that bunker. Allowing you to survive better and allow more people to survive also.

Considering this bunker is supposed to be fully stocked in case of a nuclear fallout as you describe it would have seeds to plant along with possible potting soil in case of ground contamination. Which means that botanist and nuclear physicist is going to be extremely valuable in surviving both inside and outside that bunker.

The nuclear physicist would also be able to work out a system that purifies peoples piss, which means more drinkable water.

In the end, between that nuclear physicist, botanist, and doctor...you could take in everyone. Except the male transient. Kill him. The way you described the situation between him and the female transient he was the leader and she was the follower and as such not worth the risk of taking on. The female transient would probably be able to be reformed with the military guy and doctors help.
 
Back
Top Bottom