New study on nuclear war estimates a nuclear war between Russian and US could kill up to 5 billion.

New study on the long-term impact of a nuclear exchange.

>We use climate, crop and fishery models to estimate the impacts arising from six scenarios of stratospheric soot injection, predicting the total food calories available in each nation post-war after stored food is consumed.
> In quantifying impacts away from target areas, we demonstrate that soot injections larger than 5Tg would lead to mass food shortages, and livestock and aquatic food production would be unable to compensate for reduced crop output, in almost all countries.
> We estimate more than 2billion people could die from nuclear war between India and Pakistan, and more than 5billion could die from a war between the United States and Russia—underlining the importance of global cooperation in preventing nuclear war.

From: Global food insecurity and famine from reduced crop, marine fishery and livestock production due to climate disruption from nuclear war soot injection

I don't know enough about climate modeling or nukes to comment on the methodology, but I really should.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Link:https://nitter.net/anderssandberg/status/1559289720605220864#m

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >stratospheric soot injection
    Disregarded. Nuclear winter is bullshit science.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/ZiINwTN.jpg

      Nuclear Winter models are based on the logic that dropping bombs on a bunch of cities will create firestorms that will dump a bunch of ash in the air. It's sort of like the difference between lighting a match and watching it burn, vs lighting a match and then throwing it on a pile of oily rags.

      However, there is also evidence these same models were overblown by anti-nuclear scientists in order to make nuclear war seem like such an extinction level event that no rational person would ever use a nuke again. So while nuclear war is bad and people would starve due to a complete collapse of global trade, the fact is that it is likely the nuclear winter won't be so bad (because the firestorm logic is flawed) and while I wouldn't want to be walking around outside, humanity will survive especially in the global south.

      Most of the US, Europe, China, and Japan would be fricked, though. Just not as fricked as you might think, but still fricked.

      Honestly the biggest killer in a nuclear war is the transportation system being wrecked and starvation immediately setting in in any region that isn't already food sufficient, even if they weren't hit directly. Virtually every major population center already fails this test. Also the population fleeing into the countryside in a mass panic and suddenly you have masses of people starving to death in the wilderness or getting into shootouts with farmers attempting to devour their crops and livestock.

      Also, "stratospheric soot injection" is complete bullshit and I'll prove it with one word, gravity. Everything that goes up comes down and even in the most catastrophic forest fires that kick up enough debris to turn day into night, everything usually clears up within few days of the fire ending. I'd be more worried about shit like asbestos and pulverized concrete contaminating arable land personally.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        The thing about atmospheric soot ejection is that it is very dependent on the volume and type of matter ejected into the atmosphere
        The Chicxulub impact (which wiped out the dinosaurs) ejected enough matter into the atmosphere to reduce incident sunlight by as much as 50% for over a year and as a result wiped out three quarters of all life on earth. This stuff wasn't soot however, but rather toxic sulfides and other chemical compounds produced from the bedrock the asteroid impacted into
        No amount of nukes are going to be enough to recreate an impact like that so therefore nuclear winter is indeed bunk, but the actual physics behind the process are sound

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Please drop the bomb and end this hellish nightmare.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Please drop the bomb and end this hellish nightmare.
      And replace it with an even more hellish nightmare?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        The ride never ends

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Why don't you drop the bomb for yourself alone and just stop eating and die? Be the change you want to see in the world.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        This is a good point that I don't see brought up enough.
        People on here and other places I see go "I can't wait for the nuclear war and the total collapse of society, bring on the nukes and mass death", like you don't have to wait for that to happen to die if you really want it.
        Like, especially in the USA you guys all have guns, what's to stop you from just living that life now? Just start shooting people or live in the woods or what have you.
        >but the police
        What, you want to live through a nuclear war and deal with the psychotic remnants of humanity trying to kill you to eat your flesh or whatever, but you're afraid of police? I don't get it.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Why don't you drop the bomb for yourself alone
        Because I want all of you to suffer.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          But I thought we were already in a 'hellish nightmare', in your own words?

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I'd be fine.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Don't care, nuke the Moscow.

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    > We estimate more than 2billion people could die from nuclear war between India and Pakistan
    So 1.3 billion Indians plus 220 Million Pakistanis plus some more in adjacent regions.
    Problems is, India produces 20% of drugs and 50% of vaccines, so this would really frick less developed countries relying solely on cheap generics from there

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It's time to buy a house in Argentina or New Zealand, /k/.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Frick off c**t we're full.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Can you frickers imagine what these apes would do if America wasn't here?

    > Safe in Florida's space cost where all the forcefield's are up and running.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      I like that cat.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Got it off a rusky on 2.
        I hope one day we can get a live action series with John Stewart. He gave a speech about the series like, multiple times.

        Still my favorite hope for the future. Psychedelic chewing gum included.

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I also can't wait until we finally frick Washington.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >5 billions of dead chinks and Black folk

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Thing is the survivors isnt gonna keep on living their usual life either.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Let it be.

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    There are 5 billion Russians? Because after seeing them fight lately I highly doubt they have a single nuke capable of landing in America

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Normally I'd be scared shitless for the future of the planet, but honestly at this point, I don't give a frick so long as every last fricking Russian and Chink dies with us.

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    What about all those nukes the US and the Soviets were popping off constantly since the 50s through the 70s? Literally the biggest bombs ever detonated too. Where's the global damage?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Generally, the argument in favour of Nuclear Winter is about the fires it would cause on all urban and industrial centres worldwide.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Wasn't there a whole redone study about that no longer being the case cause everything is made of brick and concrete in most cities so the old metrics are outdated compared to nagasaki/hiroshima?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe there's a reason they detonated them in the fricking desert or Siberia, literally hundreds of miles from people or cities, dumbfrick. Chernobyl was nearly 40 years ago and you still can't get near ground zero.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Nuclear bombs arent ractors you fricking dunce.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Then why not test nukes near a major city and see how that works out? Fricking dunce.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            They did that, fricking dunce.
            No radiation problems in Hiroshima or Nagasaki today.

            • 2 years ago
              Anonymous

              They also removed the top 6 feet of soil from the bombed areas and dumped it elsewhere.
              Those bombs were also firecrackers compared to later nuclear warheads.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                Oh then why don't they just remove the top 6 feet of soil from Chernobyl and dump it elsewhere?
                A nuclear bomb is not a nuclear reactor. The pollution caused by a nuclear warhead, no matter the size, doesn't compare to Chernobyl. You'd have to be a total simpleton to assume that just because it says "nuclear" that the exact same processes are at work.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                1. You're thinking of Chernobyl.

                2. Chernobyl released several hundred times' worth the radiation of every nuclear bomb ever detonated on this planet in a matter of days so the two are not comparable.

                3. You can actually still live in Chernobyl, provided that you're not a fricking Russian who digs trenches in the Red Forest or steals flasks full of radioactive isotopes from laboratories. A surprising number of people actually do. Honestly the biggest hindrance to resettling the Exclusion Zone at this point is the area's reputation and the fact that most of the infrastructure has rotted away and would need to be completely rebuilt.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You’re from the UK aren’t ya

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Chernobyl was nearly 40 years ago and you still can't get near ground zero.

        1. Yes you can. As long as you don't kick up and breathe dust too much. You could even take a few seconds' peek at the so-called elephant foot from the hallway without receiving a dangerous dose of radiation these days.

        2 Chernobyl was not a nuke. It was more akin to a dirty bomb.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        American education everybody.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Nuclear Winter models are based on the logic that dropping bombs on a bunch of cities will create firestorms that will dump a bunch of ash in the air. It's sort of like the difference between lighting a match and watching it burn, vs lighting a match and then throwing it on a pile of oily rags.

      However, there is also evidence these same models were overblown by anti-nuclear scientists in order to make nuclear war seem like such an extinction level event that no rational person would ever use a nuke again. So while nuclear war is bad and people would starve due to a complete collapse of global trade, the fact is that it is likely the nuclear winter won't be so bad (because the firestorm logic is flawed) and while I wouldn't want to be walking around outside, humanity will survive especially in the global south.

      Most of the US, Europe, China, and Japan would be fricked, though. Just not as fricked as you might think, but still fricked.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        The sheer volume of farmland and decentralization of population/infrastructure/logistics means that the USA is probably going to survive even if every single one of Russia's warheads work and none of them are intercepted. The real danger is to the countries which import food from us, such as China.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          There's also a complete end of The World As We Know It at least on par with the two world wars causing the various western European nations to fall from being global powers to what they are today. As an American I'd rather the USA stay as the world leader and not slide down to a regional power.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >do it once a month in the middle of fricking nowhere (such as the steppes of Kazakhstan or tiny 100sqft islands in the middle of the Pacific) over the course of 30 years
      versus
      >do it all at the same time, several orders of magnitude more delivered firepower, over population centres, military bases and industrial centres full of the combustibles you'd expect in such places
      Gee I wonder how these two scenarios differ

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Does this study conclude the possibility that the USA is capable of a nuclear first strike taking about about 90% of Russia's operational nukes?

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Nuclear war would kill billions due to the collapse of global trade and interconnectivity, not nuclear winter

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Alarmist nonsense but nuclear war is a terrible idea so it's ok to lie about just how bad it would be, imo.
    Say it'll split the earth in half and end all life for all I care and I'll nod along

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Lmao, get fricked maricas

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Would anyone be able to tell the difference if South America were nuked?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Would anyone be able to tell the difference if South America were nuked?

      Would anyone notice if south america disappeared?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        How much of South America? I might notice the sudden lack of cigars if Nicaragua vanished along with South America proper.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Argentina won't be directly hit by nukes, but they may suffer hunger. Australia and New Zealand may be hit, but would likely not suffer from hunger if not nuked.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It's the opposite. Argentina and southern brazil have some of the most fertile soil on earth wich is why they have a massive agro imdustry. Australia is mostly shitty sandy land and New Zealand is a tiny island.
            On this scenario other fertile places like U. S. A. and Ukraine would become a radioactive wasteland.

            All of Oceania would starve and die because they depend much more on trade.
            Places like Cape Town and the argentinian/Chilean Patagonia would be the last of human civilization to survive.

            • 2 years ago
              Anonymous

              Everywhere i go i see the borders of france.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                Best soil in western europe.

            • 2 years ago
              Anonymous

              The anglos would still have the falklands though. I would imagine they would all move there in this scenario

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I would be upset if the Falkland's disappeared, but the rest of it can go for sure.

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Fearmongering vatnik propaganda.

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >would lead to mass food shortages, and livestock and aquatic food production would be unable to compensate for reduced crop output, in almost all countries.
    >one of those countries is australia
    good luck with that whole nuclear war thing folks
    no, we won't be accepting refugees

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      You guys are getting into the nuke sub game, making you a new target.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Straya's sub base is on the West Coast and is already a nuke target as its the Indian Ocean re-arming depot for USN Subs once theyve fired their first loads into PLA-N.
        We had USN boats since LA class boats in Stirling to load up for test firings etc
        >Rockingham/Perth - and nothing of value will be lost
        >95% of Straya is East Coast and DGAF about the other side of the Wasteland

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      You still have everything expensive and the girls are pretty scary.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      As if anyone will ask you cucks for permission to enter.

  21. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Sounds good to me.
    >remember picveryrelated

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      But I want to live out my On The Beach fantasy and spend my last days with a beautiful Aussie lush before I sail off into the sunset as she sits in her car and bites down on a cynanide capsule.

  22. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >estimate the impacts arising from six scenarios of stratospheric soot injection
    I suggest they apply their model and estimate the global impact of soot injection following the oil field burnings of the Gulf War. Does that lead to an extinction event in 1992? Or does the model hold up to scrutiny?

  23. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Australia will relatively comfortably survive
    >but will also get rushed by millions of starving refugees
    I feel like things would get extremely violent.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      For the refugees, certainly

  24. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >scaremongering study
    eh, I guess it is worth it if it prevents things from escalating into nuclear. Does not stop it from being bullshit based on dumb assumptions and false data.

  25. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    So 90% of asians and shitskins will die while mutts and mongols vaporize eachother.
    Why is this bad?

  26. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It's shit like this that makes me glad I live in Australia

  27. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >lets sacrifice ourselves and the entire earth just to kill subhumans
    Ironic racists. One finger nail of a westerner is worth a trillion dead chinks.

  28. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Muh burning cities model
    >Muh linear zero threshold model
    >Muh nukleer wintur
    Fricking pussies make me sick.

  29. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    In a global nuclear war, South America will be the center of the world, untouched by any power.

  30. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Worth it if Russians are wiped out.
    All the other dead turd worlders is just a nice bonus.

  31. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Why didn't "they" just use the vaccine to kill people instead

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Wild theory: maybe the vaccine wasn't a plot to kill everyone

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I know but I'm saying why didn't they just use to kill all those people if they want them dead anyways

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Scariest theory of all: there is no 'they' conspiring to ruin our lives or kill us all. The way in which society slowly unwinds and shit gets worse isn't orchestrated by some grand plan; there is no schedule adhered to by shadowy cliques with regular meetings. At best there are groups of rich idiots who think they know what they're doing, and psychopaths making the best of the situations they find themselves in, all who are still pushed along on the same currents that we're all trapped in. It's unfolding to no particular design, no higher being testing us, no demon tempting us. Just physics and biology and entropy.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >scariest theory of all
            Also the most likely.

  32. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    sounds good, where do I sign?

  33. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Pure vatnik cope. Threats of nukes are all you have left.

  34. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It's another episode of academics misusing scientific models to scaremonger in the name of pacifism.

    Nuclear winter models were disproven by the Gulf War oil well fires. No doubt the rehashed Carl Sagans of this generation will have some half-assed deflection for this, and doubtless it will crumple under sustained inspection.

  35. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Needs to be 7 billion and specifically outside Europe and the US.

  36. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    99.5% of humans are technically redundant for even the 50%th percentile of a modern standard of living.
    The remaining 40 million, even if that 99.5% disappeared at totally random, would still be able to function the exact same as we all do today, and the homosexual sapiens species and various sub species would be just as viable for genetic health while having 800 years of secure resources, not even calculating technology advancement.

    So tell me why 5 billion people shouldn't die.
    Tell me why you or I, or your kids, or your mom, or any of your neighbors are special and deserve to live.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Murdering random people is bad and moral relativism is gay.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        It's not random if you slap together a eugenics program beforehand

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I never said anything about choice or intent or deliberate motive,
        Only the pure and simple fact that we are well past the point of selectively culling ourselves for the benefit of the whole species and environment.

        We cull (hunt) wolves to protect the rabbits and elk.
        We cull (hunt) deer or pigeons or coyotes or any of the dozens of othet species for the same long term benefit.

        What makes me (what makes you or anyone you know) so special that we can replicate like an unchecked virus to the point of being a serious global problem to our own species?

        I say drop the nukes. Drop all of them. I think it still won't be enough of a legitimate, truly long term conservation effort.
        And again I say this knowing full well that I or anyone in my family or you and anyone you know could be first on the chopping block.

        Get real mf'er

  37. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    stfu you guidestone shilling homosexual

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *