4 ms·

Absurd. This kind of war destroys the government. You can only speculate what replaces it. And it'll probably be the winners (or non-losers) who dictate. 95% d

by cmurf 5y ago

Absurd. This kind of war destroys the government. You can only speculate what replaces it. And it'll probably be the winners (or non-losers) who dictate. 95% dead is a lot of corpses and demolished infrastructure with no fuel to operate heavy machinery to clean up anything. Europe after WW2 had the Marshall Plan. Who does this for WW3? China? India? Why not just take the intellectual property? There's no longer anyone, person or government force or leverage to protect it. If cities are destroyed expertise is probably not 95% destroyed, but closer to 99%. I think the current geopolitics is wiped out. At least the belligerents. Not only are their governments physically destroyed, but they have no legitimacy. They just allowed the worst failure in human history to occur. There's no assurances what happens next.

extheat 5y ago
I don’t think it’s absurd. Maybe overly optimistic, but life has found a way to make it to where it is today. I have no reason to not believe that humans would still be around and kicking (even some of the Dinosaurs survived to today...). Yes most of the governments would be gone—natural law would take over. But in the end, there are going to be survivors. Some of them are smart. Most of them can talk, read, write and so forth. If you view a nuclear war as completely destroying the planet, I think that’s the problem. Even with all the (known) present nuclear warheads on the planet, we don’t have enough to destroy every meter of land on the planet. That would require deliberate and pinpoint precision, most likely not going to happen. The Earth is just too big. There will be technologically advanced places that will persist—no matter what. And they’re the keys to gradually returning the planet to where it once was. It’s not going to be a quick process, it’s going to happen on the scale of 10+ years, but it will get done. If this was not the case we can forget about going to Mars or even the Moon and just call it impossible.
- leto_ii 5y ago
  > But in the end, there are going to be survivors. Some of them are smart. Agreed. They however will be spending their time doing subsidence agriculture, basic medicine, hunting, building etc. just like anybody living in premodern conditions. With 95% population loss you can be damn sure there will be no internet, electricity, water/sewage, refined fuel for transportation etc. People will quickly revert to the middle ages because they'll have to. There will be no time to tinker with reinventing microelectronics. > There will be technologically advanced places that will persist—no matter what You can be basically sure that there won't. The 5% left will be in small remote communities, not in a few big cities.
zardo 5y ago
> Who does this for WW3? China? India? A strong possibility every nuclear armed state with a hated enemy winds up firing. I wouldn't count on India and China coming out of it much better than the US or Russia.

by cmurf 5y ago

extheat 5y ago

I don’t think it’s absurd. Maybe overly optimistic, but life has found a way to make it to where it is today. I have no reason to not believe that humans would still be around and kicking (even some of the Dinosaurs survived to today...). Yes most of the governments would be gone—natural law would take over. But in the end, there are going to be survivors. Some of them are smart. Most of them can talk, read, write and so forth. If you view a nuclear war as completely destroying the planet, I think that’s the problem. Even with all the (known) present nuclear warheads on the planet, we don’t have enough to destroy every meter of land on the planet. That would require deliberate and pinpoint precision, most likely not going to happen. The Earth is just too big. There will be technologically advanced places that will persist—no matter what. And they’re the keys to gradually returning the planet to where it once was. It’s not going to be a quick process, it’s going to happen on the scale of 10+ years, but it will get done. If this was not the case we can forget about going to Mars or even the Moon and just call it impossible.

leto_ii 5y ago
> But in the end, there are going to be survivors. Some of them are smart. Agreed. They however will be spending their time doing subsidence agriculture, basic medicine, hunting, building etc. just like anybody living in premodern conditions. With 95% population loss you can be damn sure there will be no internet, electricity, water/sewage, refined fuel for transportation etc. People will quickly revert to the middle ages because they'll have to. There will be no time to tinker with reinventing microelectronics. > There will be technologically advanced places that will persist—no matter what You can be basically sure that there won't. The 5% left will be in small remote communities, not in a few big cities.

zardo 5y ago

> Who does this for WW3? China? India? A strong possibility every nuclear armed state with a hated enemy winds up firing. I wouldn't count on India and China coming out of it much better than the US or Russia.