3 ms·

The people not near the cities targeted wouldn't die from environmental results. That's the point. They might die from serious economic disruption if they can't

The people not near the cities targeted wouldn't die from environmental results. That's the point. They might die from serious economic disruption if they can't get access to food. But there would be people who would survive it. There's quite a lot of land in flyover states and what not. A lot of that is farmland.

greedo 9y ago
A lot of that farmland you're referring to houses ICBM silos, command and control facilities, or airbases.
- goatlover 9y ago
  I'm guessing that's less than 0.01% of the actual land area. Anyway, there's mountains, forests, arctic wilderness, islands, etc. where some people live in various concentrations. Human civilization would take a massive blow from an all-out nuclear war, but human beings wouldn't go extinct, and some elements of civilization would remain. It's not like all technological capability or knowledge would be lost.
  - greedo 9y ago
    The interdependency of technology between cities, states and nation-states shouldn't be underestimated. How many books are available today that can describe how to make a semiconductor? Will these books survive? How about the process to create pure silicon? Or the lithography necessary to create CPUs? And with multiple nuclear detonations, the likelihood of EMP effects is high; this will cripple civilization as much as any explosions or fallout. Sure, technology can survive; witness the gunsmiths in the Hindu Kush who can recreate a functioning Enfield rifle (or ak-47) from scrap metal. But the world would be set back at least 100 years or more, and much knowledge would be lost because of poor archiving, poor dissemination, and the death of experts who are invaluable.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > A lot of that farmland you're referring to houses ICBM silo Certainly NOT a lot. Even if you have tens of thousands of ICBM silos that's still not much density compared to whole land at your disposal.

greedo 9y ago

A lot of that farmland you're referring to houses ICBM silos, command and control facilities, or airbases.

goatlover 9y ago
I'm guessing that's less than 0.01% of the actual land area. Anyway, there's mountains, forests, arctic wilderness, islands, etc. where some people live in various concentrations. Human civilization would take a massive blow from an all-out nuclear war, but human beings wouldn't go extinct, and some elements of civilization would remain. It's not like all technological capability or knowledge would be lost.
- greedo 9y ago
  The interdependency of technology between cities, states and nation-states shouldn't be underestimated. How many books are available today that can describe how to make a semiconductor? Will these books survive? How about the process to create pure silicon? Or the lithography necessary to create CPUs? And with multiple nuclear detonations, the likelihood of EMP effects is high; this will cripple civilization as much as any explosions or fallout. Sure, technology can survive; witness the gunsmiths in the Hindu Kush who can recreate a functioning Enfield rifle (or ak-47) from scrap metal. But the world would be set back at least 100 years or more, and much knowledge would be lost because of poor archiving, poor dissemination, and the death of experts who are invaluable.
ekianjo 9y ago
> A lot of that farmland you're referring to houses ICBM silo Certainly NOT a lot. Even if you have tens of thousands of ICBM silos that's still not much density compared to whole land at your disposal.