People always talk about nuclear war like it would be some kind of extinction level event but is that realistic?

People always talk about nuclear war like it would be some kind of extinction level event but is that realistic? Can two countries swap nukes without destroying the entire planet?

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

    We've done it before, but we arent supposed to talk abou

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Can two countries swap nukes without destroying the entire planet?
    The US swapped two nukes for 0 nukes once.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    we've tested thousands of nukes already and it didn't end the world nor cause nuclear winter
    The effects of global thermonuclear would be limited to the northern hemisphere

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >The effects of global thermonuclear would be limited to the northern hemisphere
      Which would suck because that's where I am.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The northern hemisphere is the world so to speak so yeah it's end of the world

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    That's only if they unload like a hundred fricking nukes at once. A single city can be nuked and will change frick all.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't a nuke go off in Ukraine once?

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It is not an extinction event with the nukes alone.
    It would be hundreds of millions dead, long lasting environmental disaster, economic collapse, and so on.
    Also the initiator would be wiped out from the history along with their people.

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Nuclear war can be funny, even comedy. Just imagine a India-Pakistan nuclear war.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Humanity has survived at least one nuclear war in the past which melted the ice sheets and caused noahs flood when the interdimensional / intergalactical powers thought over the domain of earth and their gene spliced servant/thrall races on it. One faction wanted to free us from servitude while the other wanted to continue to enslave us. There have been further skirmishes but the battle that lead to the flood was the biggest one and most likely a nuclear considering the scorched landmasses in the former lush lands of babylon and messopotemia.

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It's like global warming. It's very very bad, very undesirable, but it's far from a doomsday.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I've read some on the subject and concluded "probably not", here's fairly detailed summary:
    https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/mxKwP2PFtg8ABwzug/nuclear-war-is-unlikely-to-cause-human-extinction

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    No, probably not. The perception is mainly based on media like On The Beach where it shows just a giant invisible death cloud of radiation reaching every single point on the planet. That and nuclear weapon designs were continually tweaked to spread less radiation after detonation. So outside of the general zones of the blasts, we'd be gucci as a human race ~~*maybe*~~

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    No, the nukes were the starting gun for WWIII, the opening bombardment before the tanks got rolling. If the head planners in NATO and the USSR didn't know that war was going to follow detonations instead of just plain wiping us all out, why would they bother drawing up war plans

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Russians would get annihilated as a nation, the West, not so much. US would take the brunt of that exchange, a billion people would die and whoever is left alive would do their best to survive the chaos of the first few years.

    And then they would scramble to murder anyone remaining in Russia.

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    If Ukraine had 10 nukes aimed at Moscow this war would not have started in the first place.
    Instead they invested in their conventional garbage and look where we are. Putin would have never risked Moscow getting deleted to get Dombabwe

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The U.S./EU denuclearized Ukraine in the 1990s as a concession to Russia. Ukraine wasn't given a choice. Their nukes were shipped back to Moscow without Ukraine having a voice at the negotiation table. Ukraine's development of conventional weapons since then has relied heavily on old Soviet infrastructure, but Ukraine has also been highly adaptive and innovative on a shoestring budget. They've created some advanced weapons for a fraction of what the West spends on similar development. Their crushing poverty has been what held them back, and the insane levels of Russian corruption that crippled their government and society up to 2014 when they finally got a chance to start cleaning that up.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        so you're saying a smaller, shittier russia, intentionally crippled, still managed to outperform them since the collapse of the ussr?

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Give Ukraine their nukes back

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