[deleted]

Comments

• inv3r510n@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  False. Nuclear war kills most of the population on the planet, whether from a direct hit, fallout, food and water being contaminated, or the breakdown of society that comes after.

  Those who get killed by the direct hit will be considered lucky by the people unlucky enough to survive it.

  source

  • Today@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Bring it on.

    source

    • inv3r510n@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Ok, even if you hate humanity, what about all the other animals we share the planet with? They’ll be just as hurt as us.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• corvi@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  All-out nuclear war would kill every human on the planet.

  source

  • inv3r510n@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I think that’s an exaggeration, but the population would drop dramatically and only small self sustaining nations far from the conflict would survive. But it’s 2024 and most of the world is interdependent on each other for trade of essential goods…

    source

    • movies@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Nuclear war would be absolutely apocalyptic. Lookup the US policy on “Launch on Warning” and “Hair-trigger alert”. Russia has the same thing and China by this point probably does, too. If the US were targeted those doctrines would come into effect and we’d go into “escalate to de-escalate” mode. And that’d make it worse.

      There would be multiple thousands of warheads launched around the globe. EMPs would be detonated in the atmosphere, continent-wide power grids would fail. A single Ohio-class nuclear submarine has more destructive power than every bomb, including the two nukes, dropped in WWII — and they’d light the place up. And then you have all the various contamination in the air, soil, and water that would be cycled through the ecosystem for hundreds and thousands of years.

      Pockets of people would live, certainly, but it’d be awful. Like Khrushchev said, “the survivors will envy the dead.”

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • remon@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Not even close.

    source

    • spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Yup, killing 99% of the population leaves 8,00,000 people, many of which won’t develop cancer fast enough to keep the population from continuing.

      source
• CameronDev@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Unless they decided to nuke all the arable land instead, lower upfront deaths, but the long term famine will get everyone.

  Realistically, nuclear war is the end of everyone, its called MAD for a reason.

  source
• Zahille7@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  You’re so fucking stupid I don’t even have an insult or something clever to say, other than remove yourself from the gene pool.

  source

  • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Sorry.

    source

    • possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Don’t take it to much to heart. My guess is that the election results are still upsetting people which means they get mad as a defense.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    How date they have a shower thought!

    source
• BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Kurzgesagt has a video about life after nuclear war… It’s not pretty.

  source

  • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Thanks, didn’t see that one. I’ll check it out tonight.

    source
• possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I like how this is somehow not political

  source

  • iii@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Political beliefs are not rational and but many people are unaware of there own irrational logic.

    I found yourmorals.org quite usefull in that regard.

    source
• tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I have a feeling that we’re gonna see the first use of a WMD by Russia against the US in the next 4 years. My theory is that Trump will know about this well in advance, but won’t give a shit when he learns that it’s against a Democratic city. The facts will come out months or years later

  source
• sxan@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  All of the silos are in rural areas; those are mostly known and definitely first-strike targets. Cities need very few nukes to take out individually. Nowhere will anyone be rebuilding from the ashes. If the war is limited and nuclear winter doesn’t make the entire planet uninhabitable, the only places with a chance of surviving are the undeveloped countries. No developed country will be habitable.

  Nuclear fallout is a bitch.

  source

  • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Dang, I was thinking west coast might be OK because of the winds.

    source
• Sergio@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Take a look at the movie “Threads” about the effects of a nuclear war. It’s from back in the cold war, but a lot of it remains relevant:

  • www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvFu7Z5cc88
  • www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhcrgQihRcs
  • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film)

  source
• Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Where I live will never be a bomb target. So, I’ll still be here. But you’re right. I’m VERY outnumbered.

  source
• PrincessKadath@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  So, the Handmaiden’s Tale?

  source
• Cryan24@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Australia, New Zealand, Ireland (possibly) and some South American countries would be ok.

  source
• BonerMan@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Nah the rural areas would die longer and more painful deaths.

  source

  • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Perhaps. I was thinking that if countries are going after casualties, the would simply fire at large cities. Those who live on a farm in the middle of nowhere, would mostly just have to worry about the winds blowing the fallout towards them.

    source

    • BonerMan@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Actually USA has this “nuclear sponge” strategy you might look into it.

      source

      • -> View More Comments