4 ms·
No. There's a pretty clear path: rising temperatures->food supply disruption->regional war->nuclear war->there are maybe a few people left in bunkers.
by notsofastbuddy 9y ago
No. There's a pretty clear path: rising temperatures->food supply disruption->regional war->nuclear war->there are maybe a few people left in bunkers.
- sgt101 9y agoI agree but I think the chain can shorten to nuclear war->there are maybe a few people left in bunkers. If we were to get rid of the nuclear option then both your chain and my chain would not be viable. Nukes before greenhouses?
- jjoonathan 9y agoThere's a pretty substantial gap between "poor people starving" and "people with nukes care," but it's still plausible enough to be chilling, that's for sure.
- dogma1138 9y agoThe people with nukes would be the last to starve. Also for anyone to go nuclear there would have to be a strategic goal for that Russia nuking the US won’t really help their food shortage and vice versa.