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
An all out nuclear war would decimate the democrats as they mostly own the larger populated cities, leaving the Republicans to rebuild from the ashes.
Submitted 22 hours ago by SendMePhotos@lemmy.world to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
Comments
tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 hours ago
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 11 hours ago
I like how this is somehow not political
iii@mander.xyz 5 hours 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.
corvi@lemm.ee 22 hours ago
All-out nuclear war would kill every human on the planet.
inv3r510n@lemmy.world 21 hours 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…
movies@lemmy.world 21 hours 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.”
remon@ani.social 21 hours ago
Not even close.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 19 hours 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.
Zahille7@lemmy.world 18 hours 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.
SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Sorry.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 11 hours 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.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 11 hours ago
How date they have a shower thought!
CameronDev@programming.dev 21 hours 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.
sxan@midwest.social 15 hours 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.
SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Dang, I was thinking west coast might be OK because of the winds.
BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Thanks, didn’t see that one. I’ll check it out tonight.
Sergio@slrpnk.net 19 hours 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:
Cryan24@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Australia, New Zealand, Ireland (possibly) and some South American countries would be ok.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
Where I live will never be a bomb target. So, I’ll still be here. But you’re right. I’m VERY outnumbered.
PrincessKadath@ani.social 22 hours ago
So, the Handmaiden’s Tale?
BonerMan@ani.social 20 hours ago
Nah the rural areas would die longer and more painful deaths.
SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 13 hours 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.
BonerMan@ani.social 1 hour ago
Actually USA has this “nuclear sponge” strategy you might look into it.
inv3r510n@lemmy.world 22 hours 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.
Today@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Bring it on.
inv3r510n@lemmy.world 21 hours 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.