4 ms·
So you can range around looking for water Which most folks know how to do, of course. And we can be sure that when they encounter other groups of people at th
by aguaviva 2y ago
So you can range around looking for water
Which most folks know how to do, of course. And we can be sure that when they encounter other groups of people at their favorite puddle, everyone will get along just fine.
Most people can survive without eating (or eating only what food they happened to have around at the time of the attack) for a few weeks.
And wouldn't be in the least motivated to leave their shelters. Howabout you try it first, and report back to us?
Look, I'm not trying to be cute here. And we agree that it won't end global industry capacity (and even the countries directly affected would eventually spring back, as after WW2). I've also done my time in physics classes, and know about all that neat physics stuff.
But your arguments sound very hand-wavy, and something tells me you're glossing over lots and lots of additional factors, and are basically trying to spin the situation as being far less of a calamity than it actually would be.
- hollerith 2y agoLet's take a step back and recall what I'm arguing against: I never argued or meant to imply that there wouldn't be tremendous suffering and death. I'm only arguing that nuclear war is extremely unlikely to end industrial civilization (though it can sure suppress industrial capacity for a few years and possibly if we get very unlucky for a few decades) and is extremely unlikely cause human extinction.