3 ms·

And if you look at how many nukes there are, and factor by how many would actually work (maybe not that meny of russia's for example), it would be very far from

• jacquesm 3y ago
  This is almost comically incorrect. A few decades rebuilding? We'd be lucky to come through that with even a semblance of our institutions and capabilities in one piece. Never mind the population...
  • jacknews 3y ago
    no, it's not the 80s anymore. There are simply not enough nukes to destroy even every large city or even a majority of them, and then there are all the military targets that would be a priority anyway. Just 10s of miles away, you'd be mostly fine anyway, after the fallout has fallen. Nuclear winter is not a real thing, or at least, it's on a similar scale to a large volcanic eruption. ie at least a "year without a summer", and maybe a decade of cooler weather, but not the years of total darkness we're led to imagine. Of course, with completely destroyed supply chains, bad crop yields etc, and then inevitable fighting over resources, the aftermath would see many millions of further deaths. But look at somewhere like Shenzhen. A small fishing village just 40-50 years ago. Or Berlin after WW2. Sure, we'll rebuild in a few decades. Perhaps not to the same levels of grotesque consumerism and waste we have now maybe. I mean, this is obviously not something we want to happen, at almost any cost (for example, russia winning in ukraine would be infinitely preferable, even for most ukrainians), but it would not be the end of even civilization, let alone humanity, or all life.