3 ms·
Even if we take 1985 levels of nuclear warheads - the maximum, I believe USSR had 40 000 back then, and fuck it, lets say for even numbers, 100 000 nuclear warh
by antocv 11y ago
Even if we take 1985 levels of nuclear warheads - the maximum, I believe USSR had 40 000 back then, and fuck it, lets say for even numbers, 100 000 nuclear warheads.
Land-surace is about 150 square million km. Take 1.2Mt the biggest yield in US arsenal currently. That would require around 270 000 nuclear warheads to cover every square km. We dont have that many and never had.
Also that wouldnt even scratch the oceans.
And the cobalt bomb, it hasnt been built, and anyway wouldnt work its not a doomsday device.
There are also way too many caves and cave systems with ecology in them which would be largely unaffected by civilized weapons.
Sure, the earth wouldnt look like it does today, but life would still prevail - and civilization isnt really that powerful to exterminate all life.
- userulluipeste 11y ago"...to cover every square km. We dont have that many..." One does not have to rake every piece of soil in order to wipe out the entire life. The oceans would get the radioactive lavement of the soil and cycle that back on the land over and over though radioactive rains. This affects especially the bottom layer of the food chain, which cause chain's partial (if not total) collapse. In the end there is the possible nuclear winter that may render almost the entire planet inhabitable for all life forms. (Spores, bacteria, algae or other microscopic life forms may resist in hibernation to thrive again someday, but that is not called "living" through the event.) The reality is that there wasn't in our planet history any extinction event that involved nuclear contamination of every available living habitat (among other hostile-to-life effects), and speculating about it and about if it would or not be destructive enough, feels to me a little bit like playing with madness here.