2 ms·

If Annie Jacobsens research is at all accurate, she mentions that since the 60s they've run simulations constantly to project how a nuclear conflict would escal

If Annie Jacobsens research is at all accurate, she mentions that since the 60s they've run simulations constantly to project how a nuclear conflict would escalate, and in that time there's never been a simulation that resulted in an outcome other than complete and total global nuclear exchange. Even from a small scale tactical deployment, simulations always show it escalating to a full cataclysm. I personally don't have the here-nor-there to say otherwise, but it does seem likely that the type of device doesn't really change the outcome.

NoImmatureAdHom 2mo ago
If "complete and total global nuclear exchange" means "we shoot off all the nukes we've got", then how bad that is depends on how many nukes there are - not whether we shoot all of them or not. "Complete and total global nuclear exchange" is not so bad when there are 50 100Kt nukes, and is really, really bad when there are 10,000 10Mt nukes. And we've drastically reduced both the number of nuclear weapons and their average yield since the cold war (https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/ https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/). Which is great news! I'm no expert, but from a little reading it seems all-out nuclear war would be not just survivable for the species, but not even that bad for most of humanity comparing to disasters of yore. South America, Oceania, much of Asia, and Africa would be ~fine.
- King-Aaron 2mo ago
  To be honest, even one major mass casualty event in a city from an exchange would be enough to tip the economy and cripple supply chains etc, and a limited/full exchange doesn't necessarily need to incinerate the whole world in order to completely collapse it
  - NoImmatureAdHom 2mo ago
    Eh I think we're more resilient than that. It'd be shocking, yes, but in the end I don't think it would be that much of a disruption from the point of view of the species.

NoImmatureAdHom 2mo ago

If "complete and total global nuclear exchange" means "we shoot off all the nukes we've got", then how bad that is depends on how many nukes there are - not whether we shoot all of them or not. "Complete and total global nuclear exchange" is not so bad when there are 50 100Kt nukes, and is really, really bad when there are 10,000 10Mt nukes. And we've drastically reduced both the number of nuclear weapons and their average yield since the cold war (https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/ https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/). Which is great news! I'm no expert, but from a little reading it seems all-out nuclear war would be not just survivable for the species, but not even that bad for most of humanity comparing to disasters of yore. South America, Oceania, much of Asia, and Africa would be ~fine.

King-Aaron 2mo ago
To be honest, even one major mass casualty event in a city from an exchange would be enough to tip the economy and cripple supply chains etc, and a limited/full exchange doesn't necessarily need to incinerate the whole world in order to completely collapse it
- NoImmatureAdHom 2mo ago
  Eh I think we're more resilient than that. It'd be shocking, yes, but in the end I don't think it would be that much of a disruption from the point of view of the species.