If the automatic nuclear war does wipe everybody off the face of earth, it would still be satisfying to know that there was some way of determining which side was the winner.

So I propose an underground bunker with a computing machine using some sort of algorithm agreed upon by all players including the latest newcomers. Following the destruction of all humanity on earth, the program will check how fast each side responded, who started it, what measures were taken to try to save the population, how many shelters were there that proved insufficient for anything, and other benefits of the detonated nuclear bombs, proving the superiority of one side over the other.

Following this, a year after the world's destruction, the winner will be declared, and the flag of the winning organization or country will be raised automatically at the Nuclear Race Winner center.

The computer and all its part will be completely mechanical, with no electric pars, and made from components translucent to radioactivity, and protected from high temperatures with heat proof materials.
-- pashute, Sep 14 2014

not particularly relevant Thermonuclear_20Roulette
but who's to say. [FlyingToaster, Sep 15 2014]

I didn't think of the sound that should accompany the flag. Probably the ding from a typewriter. But hey, this is halfbakery, so I'm leaving it to you.

For full disclosure, I am obliged to say that this idea is about the human culture and traditions of attempts at wiping the human race off the face of earth, so you must agree that it does have to do with both culture and race.
-- pashute, Sep 14 2014


A computer inside a "Faraday cage" can withstand ElectroMagnetic Pulses. Also, so can old-fashioned electronic circuits that used vacuum tubes instead of transistors. Your Judgment Day computer probably doesn't have to be 100% mechanical.
-- Vernon, Sep 14 2014


Shirley the simpler option is to have all of this done on the ISS?
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 14 2014


// the sound that should accompany the flag //

The only possible choice would be the Looney Tunes signout music ...
-- 8th of 7, Sep 14 2014


I'm happy to inform you that the use of every nuclear bomb on the planet would be unlikely to kill all humans, immediately or through environmental and secondary effects.
-- Voice, Sep 14 2014


You're right.

But we can chip in to help, if it's important to you - a couple of tonnes of antihydrogen, maybe ?
-- 8th of 7, Sep 14 2014


//Following the destruction of all humanity on earth//

Aren't we well past that mythology by now? Sure, all the major population centres of the warring tribes would be hit, but that leaves a lot of in-betweeners. I'd wager somone from an upper-amazonian tribe would have a hard time telling the difference between a nuclear winter and a volanic one.
-- Custardguts, Sep 14 2014


Yes, but you'll pull better ratings if you have a proper "once and for all finale" episode, and after all that's what the big advertisers will pay for.

Always leave them wanting more … let it lie fallow a few years, then start off again with a small group on another Class M planet. OK, so you can't bring back any of the original cast, but a few clones of popular characters should at least get a reasonable share for the pilot.
-- 8th of 7, Sep 14 2014


I just always thought the whole "end of the human race" thing as a bit silly. Surely the loss of billions of lives is enough reason not to unleash the icbm's of war, without having to exaggerate? Do people realty think London, Paris and New York are the only seats of humanity? Are people deluded enough to think the existing stockpiles are big enough to physically damage the planet’s surface enough to do real harm? That’s an obscure type of hubris that is.

If there’s 5000 warheads ready to be launched*, and they are, that means if evenly distributed across the earth’s land surface** there’s one nuke per 30000 square kilometres. Or a square 173km a side. The overwhelming majority of the active warheads are in the 100-250kt range. So even if they were spread out, there would be many, many survivors. I would argue there would be even more survivors from a more likely exchange where military and civilian centres are targeted far more densely, because there are a lot of people living in places that wouldn’t get targeted at all. Like, the whole of New Zealand probably wouldn’t be afforded a single nuke, south America would pretty much be in the clear, same with western Africa, that kind of thing. Anyhow, I’m belabouring the point, but even a worst case, full out exchange wouldn’t kill off mankind. It would fuck everything up, but not wipe us out.

*This is about right, give or take a few hundred. Not all of these are on icbm/slbm’s, but who’s being picky. Not counting inactive stockpiles. **they wouldn’t be, you know. Also, that’s the second time today I’ve done a calculation based on the earth’s land surface area, both times for halfbakery comments. Hmm.. I’ve probably never used that number before, like ever. Weird.
-- Custardguts, Sep 15 2014


The fallout from a volcanic winter doesn't tend to give you radiation sickness.

And the simple loss of technology and transportation infrastructure would kill of ~90% of the population in the developed countries, and probably ~50% in the less developed ones. Your untouched New Zealand imports about 50% of it's oil and gas, or about 25% of it's overall energy supply.

I'm not saying that humanity would be completely destroyed, but there won't be much left.
-- MechE, Sep 15 2014


A search for the phrase " I propose " on the Halfbakery yielded 411 results.
-- normzone, Sep 15 2014


//I propose//

I accept. **tee hee, giggle giggle blush**
-- AusCan531, Sep 15 2014


I suspect it will be the last scientific claim to be disproved by an experiment.
-- pashute, Sep 15 2014


//411 times//

...but never quoted in any notable movie.

AusCansei, that was for normzone, right?
-- pashute, Sep 15 2014


In the realm of nuclear mysteries, how can a country decimated twice by nuclear weapons have some of the earth's longest lived people?
-- 4and20, Sep 15 2014


Because it wasn't "decimated", that's why.

Decimation would involve the loss of 10% of the population. In 1945, there were about 70 million Japanese. Their war deaths totalled about 2.5 million (roughly 4% of their 1939 population), a drop in the ocean compared to the death and suffering they inflicted - often intentionally - on tens of millions in the countries they occupied.

So Japan wasn't decimated. Unfortunately. They only lost about 200,000 in the two atomic attacks.

In the Roman army, when decimation was ordered, the unit was divided into grouos of 10. These then drew lots within their group, and the loser was beaten or clubbed to death by the other nine. It sounds like the sort of crude, vicious barbarity that would appeal to the Japanese, possibly as a prime time game show.
-- 8th of 7, Sep 15 2014


//In the realm of nuclear mysteries, how can a country decimated twice by nuclear weapons have some of the earth's longest lived people?//

Genetic selective pressure?
-- RayfordSteele, Sep 15 2014



random, halfbakery