This Nuclear War Simulator is SCARY DETAILED! 

Would I want to?

I hope not

I'm far enough from NOVA and The Norfolk Shipyard to not be affected by the blasts, got the Appalachians as a shield from anything coming from the Midwest/West. I'd survive, it wouldn't be easy, though.

Nope. Don't have a bunker and preparedness. But I'm not within the Target list.

I live in germany so not really :/

Too late for that now. The die has already been cast.

Kind of like in real life.

Hello Joshua

“…nature will begin again, with the bees, probably…” -Dr. Stephen Falken

Not playing is not a move. And not playing after the adversary has made his move is the worst for your health.

Died from a heart attack finding out about a Nuclear War after eating a Pan Pizza, a Sausage, and a 6 pack of Busch.

@@robertsteinbach7325 Could of been worse, could of ordered a Salad then got Nuked, how pissed would of he of been then ?

Probably for caught in a drive by in real life

@@robertsteinbach7325 best last meal

It's like lighting your own house on fire to kill an intruder.

A bunch of liberals freaking out over nonsense.

Do you guys realize why Europe is nuking itself? Because the countries that are there are Eastern Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary that was being nuked of the "reds" or Warsaw Pact to be exact.

Also the scenario counts *EVERY* as value not just silos.

Chasing Dissent The INCREDIBLE Weight Of MASSIVE TALENT ! - ALL IN - 53 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vsERC_P4TVk.html&ab_channel=ChasingDissentOfficial

It's a nice thought.

@@thejoin4687 that's according to the data we have

If it gives you any consolation, modern air-burst warheads release far less ionizing radiation than older ground burst warheads. It’s still going to incinerate everything within 5 km though. And that’s just the fireball.

I think the blast would topple a skyscraper. If not, the heat would melt the structural columns and it will topple.

There is no radioactive fallout from Airbursts

If you keep them in perspective long enough to get over the initial scare, you can start figuring out coping strategies.

if those missiles was money donations for the people....

Warheads, most ICBM's carry MIRV's.

We surely have more than what we’re shown

@@jonygmx4266 would you rather have people get money? or have nuclear missiles to protect your country

Cos politicians think they are worth millions of lives

I mean, at that point, you'll have people who rule based not on principle or policy, but on sheer strength. Everyone will elect the most capable combatant as opposed to the most capable leader.

Russia would get disqualified for cheating

@@Gannoh Not all, but a good majority of great leaders in history were exceptional combatants and strategists. So it may not be THAT bad.

Because people usually support these types of actions. People for example support giving tanks to Ukraine which is why a few politicians decided to do so. When people stopped supporting for example the Vietnam War, politicians decided to retreat.

they should all just sort it out in pubg

edit your comment, remove "terrible" and put "safe" or "good", i really like your idea, there is no need to destroy your planet in real life if you have a very Realistically detailed game about Nuclear Wars

This is almost the same plot as LBX wars anime

Put every world leader into a match of tf2. Whoever wins wins the demands put forth in the war.

Am guessing that is what they did in a way, that is why it never materialized

My maternal great grandfather worked as an electrical engineer under Dr. Lawrence. They might've known each other. He told a story about how there were rumors floating around the lab that the detonation of the first hydrogen bomb could cause a world ending chain reaction in the atmosphere, so he took his wife out on a "last night together" picnic on the beach, just in case. My stepdad's father was also a high ranking official in the navy and witnessed the testing. I was told it changed him. Small world...

And you are at it again, thanks to the dumbest leadership in recent european history. and the green party is the most warmongering, of all. be scared dude. Germany is Kaput even without nukes.

Entirely avoidable concept altogether already in 1939.. However Germans had other gran designs, Ever since Poles were living with the specter of Nuclear annihilation as it was targeted by Both sides, but primarily by the West. Crazy times. Thank you

Same here, my family that lived in Berlin during WWII had some scary experiences when the city was bombed, hard to believe scarier things were possible in their life time. Nukes should never be used against other humans, all warfare is avoidable and evil.

We a far closer now than our parents ever were during the most dangerous moments of the cold war. Many analysts believe the die has already been cast.

Danger still looming large over Europe: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vdKO_zCkoyw.html

They are accounting for our anti air systems. Not all of them will get through and some of the bombs may have mechanical failures etc so they are just making sure the target is dead dead.

Regular sized nuclear warheads won't destroy whole cities on their own, that's why so many are directed to seemingly the same place

Me too, but I think it accounts for maybe a delayed response because those in the bases can't believe it's real and not a false alarm, until the reports start coming jn

They are also accounting for the fact that some of the nukes will be shot down by our anti ballistic missile defenses so the reason they'll hit a big city with dozens of warheads is to assure it's complete destruction even if we down the majority of incoming enemy missiles.

@@busimagen but you also dont need to turn it to glass to the last road of the outskirts to destroy a city.

Shall we play a game?

@@squintylizard hehe Good movie.

I’m assuming it was done that way to showcase both attack plans

how can you counter nuclear?

@@thenotorious844 You can’t, it’s just retaliation

I would also assume the US and Canada would have planes in the air asap to jam, destroy, or intercept any potential bombers and icbm's, not let them launch in US and Canadian airspace with no problem.

No, that is accurate. The soviet land system does indeed have a longer response time, because it launches a signalling missile that activates the silos into retaliation, adding a big layer of time between detection and action

Thankfully the game still has a small cult following. I play every now and then. Great game!

There's an android version of defcon called first strike, also the defcon deterrence mod is pretty crazy, adds mirvs and such

Another similar game called ICBM.

​@@IsItZoltan That's a completely different game lol. First strike is on steam too.

We´re not in the clear yet, Russia is threatening nuclear annihilation yet again

All the super nukes were decommissioned and dismantled. There were insanely large Nukes.

@@fcgdaeh I really hate that my Country upset the World power dynamics by unwittingly giving Nukes to India and Pakistan.

@@Len_M. They were decommissioned because they weren't needed. Older ICBMs had awful accuracy with your average American/Soviet ICBM having a CEP of 2 miles which meant they required larger warheads with a bigger yield to guarantee a hit. Nowadays we have ICBMs with CEP of around 100-200 meters which means warheads with below the megaton range are good enough to guarantee a hit while also having huge destruction levels. The largest nuclear device still in active service would be the warhead on the Dongfeng 5 Chinese ICBM which has a yield of 5 megatons. The next "closest" known (We don't know what Russian nuclear warhead yields are as they keep it a state secret) nuclear weapon would be the American B83 1.2 megaton bomb. The only actual super nuke that existed was the Tsar Bomba which was designed as a political tool rather than an actual weapon, though the Soviets and Russians did have a singular 25 megaton warhead for the R-36 ICBM that was active til 2006.

@@popaog6786 Indeed and let’s not forget how many Nukes that were accidentally dropped on the US and Canada. It’s a miracle that there wasn’t a nuclear incident. So it is good almost everything was dismantled and the material was used elsewhere.

If even one country drops a nuke, they will all drop a nuke. I don't think people realize that. And if they do, they probably have themselves convinced that it won't happen to the place they live or they will somehow be unaffected. If nuclear war happens, the only lucky people will be the ones that are immediately vaporized. It's cool to see educational tools like this that show you the consequences.

Watch the movie "Threads" for a horrifying brutal visual representation of what would happen

I hope you were thinking "educative"...

These only protect you from Thyroid cancer, that’s all, not radiation

Potassium iodide only works against iodine. For the first few days, stuff like Np-239 would be way worse than iodine.

@@placeholdername0000Its also worthless against gamma rays and neutron radiation.....although both are usually most severe near ground zero.

a direct hit is the best you can get. its over in a blink of an eye. im 30 Km away from the nearest target. so i may survive but dont want to life anymore in a world like that.

@@000jimbojones000 I mean you might survive in a nuclear silo, if you really want to live. As long as you have enough food and water...

@@korana6308 might be, but i dont want to live in a nuclear wasteland or underground for years. Its just not for me. If time comes it comes.

@@000jimbojones000 I may not survive the blast, radioactivity, lawlessness or hell on earth if it happens but I'll sure do my best to try. I've never understood people like you. No matter what happens or how bad things get you should never give up until your last dying breath.

@@000jimbojones000 don't be a woman jimbo, have the will to continue your species don't just puss out man

xD

And now a UFO flying over Canada. Ah, also China reported an unidentified object in its air space.

Its a weather balloon

@@AverageDayInside Is that why the Chinese were threatening retaliation? Because it was a weather balloon?

No but there are plenty of nukes dropping in china

Australia isn't currently on anybodies nuclear wish list as we don't have any nukes and we have a tiny army and we don't live anywhere near a nuclear power so we wouldn't get radiation blowing on us

@@TylerMarkRichardson China

@@justanamericandoggo6725 why would China nuke us in the case of nuclear war instead of using it on a more important target

Yes North Dakota is not a good place to be in any of these scenarios. Ground detonations don't affect nuclear winter much, they don't make much soot, but they absolutely do create fallout.

@@petersmythe6462 Nuclear winter is a myth.

@Skrittles true... but in order to get to the fortified nuclear silos ground detonation is the way to go. An airblast does little to crack a missile silo

​@Skrittles all counter weapons strikes will be ground bursts as will many other strikes against military targets. Half the warheads could be ground burst which means fallout for everyone.

You guys aren't taking into account the numerous cobalt devices on both sides. Google cobalt bomb. These are area denial weapons that will be used on all agricultural areas of both sides ( the entire Midwest). They are designed to produce excessive amounts of long lasting radiation. Truly the stuff of nightmares.

It's becoming more frightening again the newer generations aren't as aware of the danger as your generation was

We've got 2 years tops... It's happening now 100%. Oppenheimer knew this day was inevitable.

@@catocall7323 some of us are. I was born in 92 to parents born in 52 and 53 respectively. Did hit me far harder when i was in my late 20s just how insane the power of even a 200kt nuke would be.

@@nunyabusiness9013 no. Lol

Since the 60s, 4 more nations have nukes: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel - though they play the whole "we can neither confirm or deny this" card on that.

There's that infamous story of the man who survived both Nagasaki and Hiroshima getting nuked

@@lv.99mastermind45 They were just fire crackers compared to what we have today. If a modern day 3.8 or 5.5MT bomb was dropped on hiroshima or nagasaki it would have been a very different story.

​@@robinhood5627Just a note, don't forget that the effects radii are not directly proportional to weapon yield. Increasing the yield 100-times means cbrt(100)=4.6times increase in blast effect radius and sqrt(100)=10times increase in thermal effects radius.

I hope so. The wasteland is gonna be 😎

fallout players were training for this moment for so long

@@CraigScottFrost Surviving the first day of nuclear fallout DRAMATICALLY increases your surival odds, not being underground or any shelter is pretty much a guaranteed death from radiation poisoning if your close enough the blast. Surviving the first week and month pretty much guerentees that youve survived the most lethal part of a nuclear bomb goes off, and if theres no ash outside and you have somewhat protective gear it should be safe to leave and find a better place. I can assure you, having a basement or survival bunker would be beneficial no matter how long you stay there.

@@gamertardguardian1299 You wouldn't survive anyway. Global crop failures will kill 10x more people due to starvation. You're kidding yourself if you think you can weather this senario.

@@samuelkrakow859 Society would collapse anyways, not like you'd get much from farms if you did survived. Its pretty unlikely that everyone would just die, even if civilian targets were striked aswell as tactical targets, there would be billions of humans in the world left. Millions of people on every continent would likely survive the first month even if they weren't in a fallout shelter or basement. The following months and years would be tough with nuclear winters and fallout spreading through the atmosphere, but it would be people like you that gave up that didn't make it. Most definitely survivable, maybe the odds are you dont, but it still is. Humans and most flora and fauna would survive as well even if you didn't count those in the oceans. Besides, food shortages are only a part of the battle, and it seems like around 5 years after a war would the soil become mostly uncontaminated for crop growth. Yes a nuclear war is really bad and would lead to global human collapse and mass deaths like we have never seen in recorded history, but is unlikely it would be our and mother natures end.

@@gamertardguardian1299 I think he meant you can't reach the bunker before the detonation , unless you live nearby the bunker and never have to travel for work and other daily chores. An ICBM can usually hit the target in less than thirty minutes , a hypersonic missile in fifteen minutes.

@@morbid747 Its a general rule that you have 10 minutes after the initial blast (if you weren't vaporized or to far away) to get to a safe place before a lethal amount of radioactive particles start to fall on you. With a warning, like you said would be an extra 10 minutes at least. And this is assuming your in the outskirts of the blast, not 50 miles away which if you were then you could likely flee to a better area if you wanted to. But yes that would be useless in that case if you were to far away from a safe place. But most people spend most of their day at home so it would be beneficial i think especially if the bombs dropped when you are at home or near some kind of underground shelter. I know it might be far fetched for some people, especially those who have a job centered around traveling, but for the average joe who works 9-5 and come home for the rest of the day I think a basement or some kind of shelter would be a good investment IF you think there could be a nuclear war involving your country in the future

and the decision making window for russia is like 90 seconds because how close nato is.

@@JamesSmith-ix5jd That's pretty much how small the decision making window potentially is for every nuclear power.

And you just described the hair trigger problem, there is not enough time between detection and strike for people to figure out if a warning is good or an error, fortunately it turns out humans will default to not pressing the button given the chance.

Multiple times during the cold war controllers received false alarms and chose not to launch their own.

I think most deaths would come from the destruction of infrastructure. Food and clean water would be very scarce.

@@gobblox38 Bingo. You can survive a single bomb, even multiple nukes (like that one guy who was in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki), but you can’t survive no food.

@@jesusofbullets no food, water, medical supplies, electricity, etc.

Most would die from lack of medicine, medical care, clean water, access to food, civil unrest, etc.

Threads is a good movie

@survivalost1982 For the calculations try Carl Miller's model for fallout prediction. Tabulated data can be found in books. I have even circular slide rules from the times of Cold War. Maybe you would be interested in this website: glasstone.blogspot.com It's a pity it's a bit chaotic.

Dude, you can do a lot of things, like protest, join the peace movement and demand disarmament , and nuclear regulations. its your and our problem, we keep saying boomers where the worst, but they did mobilize and did the greatest march in history both in the us and Europe, causing political pressure so the politicians did the nuclear treaties that America just scraped, we millennials and zoomers are indeed the worst. we just twitt and believe that is activism.

Actually this makes me think it's a LOT more survivable than most people think. An EBS warning would give a few minutes and that's enough time to shelter. Then a few days for the immediate fallout to subside. It's the weeks and months after that would be the most horrible, and that's where preparation makes all the difference.

@@carlosgarzon8900 What about Generation X, ? Everyone forgets generation X.

@@Victorseafog Gen x is so meh no one remembers them.

@@violetzitola8385 well yeah, but millions still will die man, COME ON!

True, the bombs are the least of out concerns, of course you would wish to die, to survive the main attacks, you would be facing your worst nightmares. Radiation fallout, shelter, medical care, medication, food, warmth, water. And that's just fending for yourself, let alone loved ones who have survived and are injured. Thank god they dropped the bombs on japan, otherwise there would be nothing to gage these weapons and the aftermath on. It'll happen one day for sure.

My luck is everyone I know and love would die instantly and I'd be left alive to die alone from radiation poisoning. Everyone should own a quick way out if ever need be ...

The southern half of South America will be untouched in a global nuclear exchange. I'll be sitting on a beach sipping a tropical drink when this goes down.

@@nunyabusiness9013 I'll be there with a couple of blondes...i'll wave you over buddy!.

Fallout 4 real life

The Day After also. And Miracle Mile is a good representation of what would happen prior (social collapse).

Nowdays there's no time to panic, hypersonic tech and stuff like that would give you an approximate panic time of 5 to 15min before incineration

Threads is so realistic that it almost feels like a documentary spanning a whole generation.

The movie threads isn't as realistic as we though it was back when it was released. We used to think nuclear winter would pan out like that but we now know differently. Particles would disperse and settle much quicker than what was previously thought. Enough particles wouldn't be able to get high enough into the atmosphere to reach the stratosphere where it could stay for potentially years. The dangers of nuclear winter was overstated but it's not commonly discussed because maybe it's good that most people think it would be worse than it actually would be. Don't get me wrong, the aftermath of nuclear wars would still be horrible and could potentially cause society as we know it to collapse. Many more people would die after the blasts than during. In the end I think it's better to overstate the risks than understate them and Threads is great and definetly worth a watch.

@@softan I'm glad you included that last sentence!

i mean the jetstream did just recently collapse so i wouldnt count on that

we don't have nearly enough nuclear weapons to make any impact on a planatary scale. we can barely dent the biosphere. the planet is much more durable than our global civilization.

@@baburik I'm fairly sure a nuclear war would make more than just a dent in the biosphere but ok

@@seb_le1652 most of the biomass dwells in the oceans. in the last several thousand years we've driven all wildlife and most of the plants out of our cities and surroundings. so the immediate nuclear explosions would do relatively little damage to the biosphere. the nuclear fallout will do some poisoning, but it's fairly short lived compared to nuclear disasters (hiroshima is bustling city while chernobyl zone is virtually inhabited). there is also an issue with the ozone layer being damaged by the hi-energy blasts but since the most likely scenario is that nuclear strikes are going to be concentrated to 5-8 areas on the planet - it shouldn't be more than 10% loss of the ozone layer. and it actually regenerates when phytoplankton - the main ozone producer - in the ocean gets more solar energy, which it will with less ozone. funny enough, if the nuclear war leads to a economical and societal collapse - there's going to be less damage to the biosphere in the long term...

Interplanetary war scenarios would be interesting

@@russelljones3221 yea, though it would be pure speculation, since we don't even know that there are aliens out there, let alone what capabilities/behavior they have.

The nuclear winter is just a theory. Never been tested. Well actually it has been tested. Since 1945, several thousands nuclear bombs have exploded through military testing. There has been absolutely no effect on the atmosphere's temperature and sun light transmission. In a nuclear mushroom cloud, you have a ball of "fire " that dissipates within minutes and massive water condensation that quickly dissipates or falls down as rain. The dirt elevated from the earth is not that massive, and it goes down quickly. By comparison the massive volcano eruption in the Pacific last year, which lasted for days, released way more soot (orders of magnitude more) that the 10 000 nuclear bombs in the arsenals. And there has been no volcanic winter from it. Dont get me wrong a nuclear conflict would be tragic. The deaths from the flash burns, the wind blast, and the radiation fall out (most isotopes remaining for about 48 hours) would be a catastrophe. And by targeting cities, i e the most viable and strategic parts of countries, the targeted countries would be brought back hundreds of years. But those not touched by the burn, the blast, and the first 48 hours radiation (after 48 hours radiatiins would have mostly disappeared), will not live in a nuclear winter with no sun light. That is just bogus.

Everyone in the southern hemisphere is suffering after the complete collapse of the world economy.

@@Galactipod I think we'll be OK without the yanks, you're not the center of the world

​@@snigie1 so true

@@snigie1 Every major country would be nuked, not just the US. And even if the US were the only country to be nuked, it's undeniably extremely powerful politically, economically, and militarily.

@@Galactipod lucky nz isn't a major country, we'll just be riding our Kiwis on night and wonder what the fireworks on the horizon are

Longtime Beta tester here, you can change the day and it uses the weather from that day (in the past, I.E. wind direction and how fast its blowing) to change the direction of the fallout.

Its possible if intel systems still work at an acceptable level targets taken out already would not be targeted by another wave. Strike coordinates can be reprogrammed in minutes. These target coordinates are not 100% fixed.

Follow up strikes are standard SOP for nuclear forces, guarantees the total destruction of infrastructure and population basically ensuring that you have fully decapitated your enemy and that they wont come back

@@florinivan6907 I would imagine each wave wohkd target a different section of a metro area, so that each city would be totally wiped out. Hard to call this a “war plan” lol, more like total self extermination.

@@Itraininthebogs In a nuke war like any war you would target stuff of interest. Now depending on how many nukes you got and how expansive your definition of targets of interest is pretty much anything can be targeted. But in practice the target list is smaller. There's also how overpowered nukes are compared to other weapons even the weak nukes. If you take a map of most cities and plot out likely targets:military bases, airports,ports bridges ,railway tracks ,industry, comm towers whatever and see the likely damage from your average nuke your average city is destroyed. What has been declassified indicates that a 50% destruction of a city is usually considered enough in a nuke war. If you nuked say NYC and only the Bronx is still mostly standing I doubt you would care that much if you knew that say a large military base is still around in Florida. That's why it depends heavily on intel systems. If you still have some of it you can reprogramm it fast.

theres a game called Superpower 2 that's similar to this, but you have to control the economy and politics and alliances

Surplus MOPP 3 suits are pretty warm, I used to wear one when hunting in the winter. I'm sure with a wool or similar underlayer and rubberized poncho outer youd be able to trudge the wastes in subzero temps no problem.

The apocalypse in old Scandinavia was called "Finbulvinter" (Winter of Finbul) and is eerily similar to nuclear winter.

Are u ok?

The best move is not to play. Greetings Professor Faulkin.

Yep this isnt even accurate anymore. its still a 80s scenario when nukes where on the peak.... If you see that they could send a simple Drone bomb to engels a few weeks ago that destroyed planes there. You know that the shild in russia is damn full of holes. I dont even think that 10% of russias ICBMs even work if they got the same maintenance than their military since the 90s. The Fight in ukraine right now rly shows the state russias army is in. Its a pile of junk. Every shiny rocket they present on a parade is nothing more than propaganda diversion. If russia is rly that strong they could win that thing in ukraine in 2 weeks with ease. But they cant. Because they are phony.

I heard that’s where Russia has their most bombers and SU57s their too

If you live on mainland US or anywhere in Europe it's pointless. You won't live long enough to need a supply hoard unless you have a sophisticated bunker, and even then you'd just be buying yourself a few months.

Don't live in fear, brother. You and I are destined to die, whether that be by nuclear Armageddon or of a coronary slaving over a stove cooking dinner.

Join the Amish community.

.....SO,DIGGING THE SHELTER IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN JUST LEAVE THAT CARCASS POWERLESS TO INVADE ANYTHING JUST BE????? ....SEEMS TO BE,NUKES ARE ALL THEY HAVE,BUT IT'S ALL THEY NEED.....

Wtf does this have to do with trees and paper

Sorry to bother but do you know the name of the simulator been looking for the name to no avail

You assume systems are much better nowadays, but America didn't have the ability to send people to orbit for basically 10 years recently, and Russian Sojuz rockets seem to have more failures than in the past. Though you're probably right about detection capabilities.

That's the thing. They will be automatically detected within a minute , but it won't launch automatically. It would have to still be approved to launch a nuclear strike, which in reality could take time... The only automatic system that I'm aware of is the "Perimetr" system , which automatically launches nukes if it detects that the motherland has been successfully nuked. i. e. radiation levels of a nuclear blast, lost communications to the controlling center etc.

Because why not?

You'll never even know what killed you.

@@nunyabusiness9013 Most people will survive the initial blasts so he probably will know what kills him. The vast majority would die in the aftermath.

For that money you can still get Defcon.

Africa is the last place you want to be, in war or "peace".

@user-jj3fv6be3j not if its not going to be nuked

africa is already in the UK lmao

​@@glaze_tpf9791 It's ironic how so many from Latin America, Africa, and Southern Asia want to move to Europe & North America today when those are the worst places to be if nuclear war happens - and also East Asia & the Indian subcontinent since China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea have nukes too.

Questionable if they would have the ability to do this so fast.

@@MichaelDeSanta. I think everything about nuclear war is questionable. Given that it has never happened on this scale, something is bound to go wrong. This is why the Russians, for all their fanaticism, do not dare to use nuclear weapons.

lmao no

@@mrmrushworth it's hilarious everyone shits their pants over a baloon news flash china was already spying they don't need a baloon in the sky to do it china is a master at this shit

It's just a balloon, everyone is spying at eachother all the time. They just happened to get caught.

No, typically you go to shelter as the missile is still in flight. By the time it goes off you better be ready. The reality is most people are going to survive a nuclear attack because very few places in America are super densely populated, which makes a nuclear attack difficult. The biggest threat is more the lack of supplies. You probably want at least a years worth of food for example, and probably a months worth of water, even if it is just a trash can filled with water and a filter. Take a look at the Beirut explosion, that's a good idea on what it will be like. On a larger scale of course, but not that large. Most ICBMs have a "total destruction" radius of half a mile.

thank god im swiss, im not only not a target but also we have bunkers under every house

@@SVENY Finland seems to be well prepared too

If you are not inside and were not warned, it all matters where you are when the bomb goes off. The type of bomb, the payload of the bomb, the altitude it detonated, the altitude you are the humidity everything is a variable. At the onset of the actual detonation, the initial radiation released is variable to where you are in relation to the bomb. Like ig you are in a city and there are buildings between you and ground zero, you will not get the initial radiation exposure as you would if you were not shielded by buildings. Many nuclear weapons are air bust and detonated above the city for the effect of destruction from the blast wave. So the fallout you refer to is what occurs after the blast wave and radioactive dust/smoke particles are brought into the air and are spread with winds and such. Being in contact or inhalation or ingestion of said particles is the killer there, unlike the thermal and radiological blast wave of the initial detonation.

@@JonathanErwin I'm somewhat on the fence as to how dangerous fallout is. I mean by theory, yes it is bad if you ingest it, but I have a really old friend who was part of the early nuke tests and he got full exposure to the fallout of multiple detonations at various distances. The dude is close to 100 years old and doesn't have cancer or anything. Of course there is no reason to not take precautions with a respirator, disposable/cleanable outer garment and such, but I think radiation is less of a danger with bombs and alpha rays unlike say a nuclear power plant which is actively producing stronger gamma radiation over an extended period of time.