4 ms·

“I don’t know what weapons world war 3 will be fought with, but world war 4 will fought with sticks and stones”- idk A true major conflict would be annihilatio

“I don’t know what weapons world war 3 will be fought with, but world war 4 will fought with sticks and stones”- idk A true major conflict would be annihilation and utter devastation across the globe.

nine_k 7y ago
Not really. Imagine a nuclear war between US and USSR, which were on the brink of it several times. For simplicity, let's consider that 100% of populations of both countries, and half of Western Europe's, get killed in the war. This makes, roughly, 150M + 300M + 150M = 600M. With world population being around 6000M at the time of the demise of the USSR, that would make 10% of world population. Hardly a complete devastation. Much harder consequences would be the climate impact ("nuclear winter"; its original prognosis was reviewed since 1980s, it should be less severe), and radiation pollution (which, as we know from e.g. Chernobyl, is nasty but not immediately deadly after some time). Of course, the world has enough nukes to kill the entire population, but likely only if carefully planned for it, unlike any even remotely realistic conflict scenario.
- dchichkov 7y ago
  I think you underestimate how efficient and fragile the civilization is. If you take a modern city and stop transportation of products into the city, in a few days there'd be nothing to eat there.
  - nine_k 7y ago
    Yes. But we also underestimate how many people in Africa and even east Asia live not in efficient cities, but off the land, in poverty but also in relative independence.
    - dchichkov 7y ago
      There was a civilization collapse before, around 500 C.E. Cities abandoned, books burned, technology forgotten. It took 1000 years to get back to the level of that civilization. People living off the land only have so much time in the day. Some of the causes of collapse included military spending, constant wars, erosion of traditional polytheistic values by intolerant religion, government corruption and political instability, lead pollution, soil erosion and deforestation.
- chii 7y ago
  > let's consider that 100% of populations of both countries, and half of Western Europe's, get killed in the war. if it came to this, the other countries would be forcibly dragged into the conflict - it's a "with us, or against us" sort of deal. You'd expect only a handful of countries can remain neutral (most of which are in a strategically irrelevant location, like new zealand).
  - ISL 7y ago
    West Africa is unlikely to be targeted. It contains 0.37 billion people. Aggregated, Africa has 1.2 billion people, many of whom would survive. South America, too, is unlikely to see substantial targeting -- 0.42 billion people. Indonesia alone is 0.26 billion people. A nuclear exchange would be really bad, but a lot, in absolute terms, of people will survive the initial exchanges.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  How likely is an 'apocalyptic' nuclear winter as a result of nuclear war anyway? Most modern cities don't burn very well and even the largest volcanic explosions we've recorded have only dropped temperatures by an estimated few degrees. That would absolutely kill a lot of people, but humanity will survive.

nine_k 7y ago

Not really. Imagine a nuclear war between US and USSR, which were on the brink of it several times. For simplicity, let's consider that 100% of populations of both countries, and half of Western Europe's, get killed in the war. This makes, roughly, 150M + 300M + 150M = 600M. With world population being around 6000M at the time of the demise of the USSR, that would make 10% of world population. Hardly a complete devastation. Much harder consequences would be the climate impact ("nuclear winter"; its original prognosis was reviewed since 1980s, it should be less severe), and radiation pollution (which, as we know from e.g. Chernobyl, is nasty but not immediately deadly after some time). Of course, the world has enough nukes to kill the entire population, but likely only if carefully planned for it, unlike any even remotely realistic conflict scenario.

dchichkov 7y ago
I think you underestimate how efficient and fragile the civilization is. If you take a modern city and stop transportation of products into the city, in a few days there'd be nothing to eat there.
- nine_k 7y ago
  Yes. But we also underestimate how many people in Africa and even east Asia live not in efficient cities, but off the land, in poverty but also in relative independence.
  - dchichkov 7y ago
    There was a civilization collapse before, around 500 C.E. Cities abandoned, books burned, technology forgotten. It took 1000 years to get back to the level of that civilization. People living off the land only have so much time in the day. Some of the causes of collapse included military spending, constant wars, erosion of traditional polytheistic values by intolerant religion, government corruption and political instability, lead pollution, soil erosion and deforestation.
chii 7y ago
> let's consider that 100% of populations of both countries, and half of Western Europe's, get killed in the war. if it came to this, the other countries would be forcibly dragged into the conflict - it's a "with us, or against us" sort of deal. You'd expect only a handful of countries can remain neutral (most of which are in a strategically irrelevant location, like new zealand).
- ISL 7y ago
  West Africa is unlikely to be targeted. It contains 0.37 billion people. Aggregated, Africa has 1.2 billion people, many of whom would survive. South America, too, is unlikely to see substantial targeting -- 0.42 billion people. Indonesia alone is 0.26 billion people. A nuclear exchange would be really bad, but a lot, in absolute terms, of people will survive the initial exchanges.
Mirioron 7y ago
How likely is an 'apocalyptic' nuclear winter as a result of nuclear war anyway? Most modern cities don't burn very well and even the largest volcanic explosions we've recorded have only dropped temperatures by an estimated few degrees. That would absolutely kill a lot of people, but humanity will survive.