3 ms·
I think there is a dangerous misunderstanding that the population of earth could survive even a small number of nukes being used anywhere on the planet It woul
by ck2 1y ago
I think there is a dangerous misunderstanding that the population of earth could survive even a small number of nukes being used anywhere on the planet
It would be a slow-moving but certain mass-extinction event
A single modern nuke is 30-80 times more powerful than Hiroshima
And then look at the socio-economic devastation of something like Covid
- nancyminusone 1y agoGo look at the Nevada Test Site on Google maps. About 1000 nukes were set off there. Las Vegas is only about 100 miles away and by all accounts seems to be thriving. In a nuclear attack, it's unlikely "we'll" be fine, but someone will be.
- ck2 1y agoWhat on earth are you downplaying There never ever has been an above-ground test of a modern enhanced hydrogen bomb in the USA The Bikini Atoll test in the 1950s using 75 year old technology killed people via radiation over 130 miles away Modern ICBMs carry several much more powerful warheads than that Even a few of them would make life on earth a permanent hell like peak covid pandemic but forever Even the "smallest" nuclear war would be one-and-we're-done event Eventually some tyrant on their deathbed will do it though
- RajT88 1y agoSo hold on. You are saying Tsar Bomba would have potentially been an extinction event at ground level? Holy shit.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- staunton 1y agoI guess you're talking about "nuclear winter", where the ash from the nuclear explosions gets into the upper atmosphere, blocks some of the sunlight and leads to a global famine. I'm not sure what's "a small number of nukes" in your book. Last I read about it, estimates suggest e.g. India and Pakistan dropping their entire arsenals on each other would indeed cause a nuclear winter.