3 ms·

>multiple that by 14,000 warheads, and we get 112 million km². That's a lot! It's still less than the 510.1 million km² of earth's land mass, but it's a lot mo

>multiple that by 14,000 warheads, and we get 112 million km². That's a lot! It's still less than the 510.1 million km² of earth's land mass, but it's a lot more than the ~10.2 million km² of urban space. Presumably this is enough to cover every human habitation, so in principle, it might be possible to kill everyone with radiation from existing nuclear weapons. While there is ~500m km2 of land on the planet, only about 60m km2 is habitable (less desert, poles, mountains etc). Not inhabited, habitable. So yes that's not only sufficient to wipe out all population centers, it's double the amount needed to wipe out all locations on earth capable of sustaining human life. The ecosystem destruction alone, let alone spectrum social, ecological, agricultural and atmospheric effects that total nuclear war would cause, pretty much guarantee a wipeout of large mammals from the planet a-la the Cretaceous-Paleogene exctinction. In fairness, the impact from that event was equivalent to 100 million of the largest bombs we have ever made, detonated in one spot. But it's destruction was global, total, and immediate. The survivors of the first hours of a total nuclear war won't have such a quick death to look forward to.

Iv 6y ago
If nukes are used for extermination, yes, we don't stand much of a chance. If it is used for warfare, then the story is different. Normally, one does not really care about wiping the enemy's cities but would focus on military installations, military bases, navies, harbors... A nuclear war would stop when one side can't fight anymore and surrenders. It may happen after deadly exchanges that would cost millions of lives but there is no reason to believe it would last until everyone is wiped out.
- KineticLensman 6y ago
  In the UK, installation, bases and navies are very close to or embedded in cities. PJHQ is Northwest London. The Royal Navy is based near large cities on the South Coast and Scotland. Thermonuclear attacks on these bases would affect millions of people.
  - lmm 6y ago
    Yes, because the UK is densely populated. Not every country is like that.
    - KineticLensman 6y ago
      My more general point is that it may be harder than the GP suggests to distinguish between a military versus an extermination attack.
    - arethuza 6y ago
      The location of the UK's current nuclear submarines bases, surprisingly close to Glasgow - the largest city in Scotland, was mainly due to the preferences of the US Navy. The UK Government had agreed to US submarines being based here and wanted them somewhere reasonably remote (Scotland) - but the US Navy also wanted to be reasonably close to airfields and other facilities. So a site at the Holy Loch was selected for US Navy use and the Royal Navy decided it should position its bases next to the US base. Source: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0171SWRGI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0171SWRGI/ref=dp-kindle-redirec... Apparently the Royal Navy originally wanted to use somewhere much further north such as Loch Glendhu - which is fairly empty and nowhere near a major city. Edit: US Navy stopped having a submarine based in Scotland in '92: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Loch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Loch
lixtra 6y ago
> While there is ~500m km2 of land on the planet, only about 60m km2 is habitable (less desert, poles, mountains etc). Not inhabited, habitable. So yes that's not only sufficient to wipe out all population centers, it's double the amount needed to wipe out all locations on earth capable of sustaining human life. You also have to consider how connected that area is. I.E. How many nukes do you need to kill each valley in Switzerland, each oasis in the desert, etc,
- FooHentai 6y ago
  Absolutely, some folks live truly out in the boonies far away from any likely strike target (e.g. Agafia Lykova way out in the Khakassia mountains). That's a double-edged sword however, as very few people live in those fringe areas without outside support and, since there have been no true frontiers remaining on earth for the last few hundred years, those isolated settlements are in areas that cannot sustain the basics of human life in perpetutity and complete isolation at the same time.
Balgair 6y ago
James Burke went into this in The Trigger Effect[0] back in the late 1970s. It's an incredible film, if only for the timing on the last in-person voice shot [1]. The amount of lucky breaks you must have to survive even a non-nuclear civilizational collapse event are astounding. Even if you make it out to a remote corner of the world, you'll need a farm with some supplies and no one still sulking about. The really hard part is starkly obvious though: You need an ox and you need to know how to plow. Without those two things, you're basically kaput, again. I, for one, have no idea how to plow. Oh, and the ox eats too. [0] https://archive.org/details/james-burke-connections_s01e01 https://archive.org/details/james-burke-connections_s01e01 (the whole series is here, and it's all fantastic) [1] He times his narration to end with a rocket launch, down to the beat! The practice on it must have been incredible, and the luck was out of this world, literally.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  You don't need to plow soil to grow crops, and you don't need an ox to draw your plow (it does make it less labor-intensive though). What plowing does is turn the soil over, so that you can make some of the deeper nutrients more available to plants. It's only really necessary if you're doing intensive agriculture.
- ralfd 6y ago
  > He times his narration to end with a rocket launch, down to the beat! What timestamp?
  - Balgair 6y ago
    Oh no, the film is too good to skip through :)
refurb 6y ago
10% of the landmass of the earth is habitable? You got a source for that? That seems unlikely. For example, the people in Arizona might take issue with "deserts aren't habitable".

Iv 6y ago

If nukes are used for extermination, yes, we don't stand much of a chance. If it is used for warfare, then the story is different. Normally, one does not really care about wiping the enemy's cities but would focus on military installations, military bases, navies, harbors... A nuclear war would stop when one side can't fight anymore and surrenders. It may happen after deadly exchanges that would cost millions of lives but there is no reason to believe it would last until everyone is wiped out.

KineticLensman 6y ago
In the UK, installation, bases and navies are very close to or embedded in cities. PJHQ is Northwest London. The Royal Navy is based near large cities on the South Coast and Scotland. Thermonuclear attacks on these bases would affect millions of people.
- lmm 6y ago
  Yes, because the UK is densely populated. Not every country is like that.
  - KineticLensman 6y ago
    My more general point is that it may be harder than the GP suggests to distinguish between a military versus an extermination attack.
  - arethuza 6y ago
    The location of the UK's current nuclear submarines bases, surprisingly close to Glasgow - the largest city in Scotland, was mainly due to the preferences of the US Navy. The UK Government had agreed to US submarines being based here and wanted them somewhere reasonably remote (Scotland) - but the US Navy also wanted to be reasonably close to airfields and other facilities. So a site at the Holy Loch was selected for US Navy use and the Royal Navy decided it should position its bases next to the US base. Source: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0171SWRGI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0171SWRGI/ref=dp-kindle-redirec... Apparently the Royal Navy originally wanted to use somewhere much further north such as Loch Glendhu - which is fairly empty and nowhere near a major city. Edit: US Navy stopped having a submarine based in Scotland in '92: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Loch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Loch

lixtra 6y ago

> While there is ~500m km2 of land on the planet, only about 60m km2 is habitable (less desert, poles, mountains etc). Not inhabited, habitable. So yes that's not only sufficient to wipe out all population centers, it's double the amount needed to wipe out all locations on earth capable of sustaining human life. You also have to consider how connected that area is. I.E. How many nukes do you need to kill each valley in Switzerland, each oasis in the desert, etc,

FooHentai 6y ago
Absolutely, some folks live truly out in the boonies far away from any likely strike target (e.g. Agafia Lykova way out in the Khakassia mountains). That's a double-edged sword however, as very few people live in those fringe areas without outside support and, since there have been no true frontiers remaining on earth for the last few hundred years, those isolated settlements are in areas that cannot sustain the basics of human life in perpetutity and complete isolation at the same time.

Balgair 6y ago

James Burke went into this in The Trigger Effect[0] back in the late 1970s. It's an incredible film, if only for the timing on the last in-person voice shot [1]. The amount of lucky breaks you must have to survive even a non-nuclear civilizational collapse event are astounding. Even if you make it out to a remote corner of the world, you'll need a farm with some supplies and no one still sulking about. The really hard part is starkly obvious though: You need an ox and you need to know how to plow. Without those two things, you're basically kaput, again. I, for one, have no idea how to plow. Oh, and the ox eats too. [0] https://archive.org/details/james-burke-connections_s01e01 https://archive.org/details/james-burke-connections_s01e01 (the whole series is here, and it's all fantastic) [1] He times his narration to end with a rocket launch, down to the beat! The practice on it must have been incredible, and the luck was out of this world, literally.

jcranmer 6y ago
You don't need to plow soil to grow crops, and you don't need an ox to draw your plow (it does make it less labor-intensive though). What plowing does is turn the soil over, so that you can make some of the deeper nutrients more available to plants. It's only really necessary if you're doing intensive agriculture.
ralfd 6y ago
> He times his narration to end with a rocket launch, down to the beat! What timestamp?
- Balgair 6y ago
  Oh no, the film is too good to skip through :)

refurb 6y ago

10% of the landmass of the earth is habitable? You got a source for that? That seems unlikely. For example, the people in Arizona might take issue with "deserts aren't habitable".