How even a limited nuclear war would destroy the planet

submitted by Drewski from responsiblestatecraft.org

all 13 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

So basically nuclear war is the answer to global warming.

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Rich people don't think they'll die but they will.

[–]JoeWinko 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

would the internet still work for the survivors?

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If it did it wouldn't last very long.

[–]Drewski[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

archive.today mirror

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The article is nuclear fear mongering. If the 2,056 nuclear bombs already detonated didn't end the world, India and Pakistan nuking each other is unlikely to. They don't have that many.

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Full scale nuclear exchange very much could spell an end to modern civilization as we know it and the resultant famine would likely see billions die.

Extinction of all life is so unlikely it shouldn't even be considered. Humans would survive as well, just that we'd basically be returning to a low-tech agrarian/hunter gatherer society for a good long while.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I doubt the Indians and Pakis have more than 100 functional nukes between them and that's what this article is about. If there was a simultaneous launch of the US, Russian, and Chinese stockpiles -- assuming enough don't fail to launch -- we might be super fucked, but I don't think two developing nations glassing each other is going to end the world.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

No but it will cause major disruptions and likely a famine. The west isn't going to be directly impacted the worst but it's still far from limited in scope to the nations involved in the exchange.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

On the other hand, we'd be rid of India and Pakistan.

[–]raven9 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It probably did end the world for a lot of people. Do you think they would admit it if nuclear fallout from those nuclear tests had blown around the world and killed hundreds of millions of people by lung cancer or would they blame it on something else? You really think just because they can create lung cancer in beagles by making them smoke hundreds of cigarettes a day means cigarettes really cause lung cancer in humans?

Id say it is highly likely cigarettes never caused lung cancer at all. It is highly likely lung cancer is caused by something else entirely but cigarettes are a convenient blame hole which explains why no where in the world ever banned them. If you ban the thing you had been using as a blame hole for cancer, and then the cancer continued unabated, that would let the cat out of the bag and prove there had to have been another cause.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm sure lots of people would die directly or indirectly, but this idea we fire off a nuke, or even have a nuclear exchange and the world ends is rubbish. I've seen some good articles posted against the idea of a nuclear winter on here, I can't remember anything in particular though, your search as good as mine if anyone is interested.

[–]buffalo_fart_the_VII 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I saw recently the best place to be during a nuclear event is either Argentina or Australia. Although China wants Australia's ass so you'll see my ass in Patagonia.