5 ms·
> Nuclear war is, in fact, quite survivable. Nuclear winter may be less plausible than people believe but I'm not sure a nuclear war can be described as "quite
by knz 9y ago
> Nuclear war is, in fact, quite survivable.
Nuclear winter may be less plausible than people believe but I'm not sure a nuclear war can be described as "quite survivable". The potential disruption to transportation networks that are essential for food distribution and delivery of medical supplies etc would be catastrophic in a nuclear war. I have no doubt that a nuclear exchange would be accompanied by electronic warfare - disruption/destruction of the power grid in the north could kill millions in the winter, especially if the petroleum supplies required to evacuate were also disrupted.
- arethuza 9y agoI think my main worry is how well the economic system would hold up in even a fairly minor attack - given how worried politicians were at the time of the banking crisis (e.g. here in the UK having to put troops on the streets to control public order was considered likely if any of the major banks had gone under) I suspect the answer is "not very well".
- otempomores 9y agoI think the church would develop a nasty luddistic strain of belief
- mseebach 9y agoI think "survivable" is to be understood on a civilization scale, not for individuals. It would definitely be a calamitous event with massive loss of life - but if you survive the attack itself and can feed yourself and otherwise survive for a few months perhaps, you would have decent odds. I think.
- mikeash 9y agoIt depends on what exactly is meant by "quite survivable." Does that mean you'll have a 99% chance to survive even if you do any special preparation? If so, nuclear war definitely does not qualify. Does it mean you'll have a greater than 50% chance to survive with good preparation? Nuclear war probably qualifies. Or does it just mean that nuclear war won't result in human extinction? Nuclear war definitely qualifies. An all-out nuclear war would definitely kill tens of millions immediately, and tens if not hundreds of millions with the after-effects. You may not see years-long crop failures due to nuclear winter, but you'll get the same ultimate effect from lack of fertilizer, machinery, and distribution infrastructure. And fallout. A good chunk of the US's productive agricultural land is downwind from ICBM sites which would be targeted for extremely dirty ground burst attacks.
- pvg 9y agoThere's no reasonable interpretation of a 50%-ish survival rate that can be described as 'quite survivable'. Toxicologists say LD50, for instance, not QS50.
- mikeash 9y agoYou have a quibble with that one but not with defining it as "humanity doesn't go extinct"?
- khedoros1 9y agoOn an individual scale? Sure. On a civilization or species scale? Survival of the larger group is almost certain if each individual has "only" a 50% chance of death.
- quotemstr 9y agoThe Black Death, after all, killed about half of Europe's population. European civilization survived.
- thaumasiotes 9y agoWell, a subset of the population persisted. The order of society changed radically, as it became impossible to enforce enserfment.
- ekianjo 9y agoWas it really half? I have seen figures around 30%. Are there any accurate records in every country at the time?
- downrightmike 9y agoMad Max survival is still survival.
- otempomores 9y agoAnd thus as sole power to rule the solar system the swiss rose from the ashes