Pre-historic humanity survived the Toba volcanic event 74000 years ago, which would've been several hundred times more powerful than the combined...

Pre-historic humanity survived the Toba volcanic event 74000 years ago, which would've been several hundred times more powerful than the combined arsenal of every nuke on earth detonating at the same time, and several thousand times more powerful than Tsar Bomba.

With that in mind, was there ever any real danger of nuclear war wiping out the majority of humans? I doubt you could even wipe out a billion.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pissing hot nuclear loads across the Earth in the process of blowing up a whole bunch of cities still would be pretty bad, even if it didn't kill absolutly every human in the process.

    Having to rebuild from the ashes would be a pretty big setback for humanity, who even as it stands seems like they are going to struggle to leave the solar system.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Having to rebuild from the ashes would be a pretty big setback for humanity,
      Considering R*ssia and Ch*na get hit harder, it would be overall an upside.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >for humanity
      lol he fell for it

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        there is no physical boundary between human groups, we can all interbreed. If races were like aliens and that was impossible you might have a point but that’s not reality

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Different species can interbreed; coyotes and dogs, wolves and dogs, humans and neanderthals, ligers, etc, etc, etc. Unique health problems do arise in hybrids between West/African/Eurasin human hybrids, probably due to genetic distance. Remember that we're separated from them by 80k years,

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Remember that we're separated from them by 80k years,
            Not really. Humans have always moved around and the urge to frick people who seem 'exotic' is a strong one. Add in warfare, pilgrimage, mass migration, and long-distance trade and the gene pool gets stirred fairly frequently.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          there's no physical boundary between me and my sister
          i can frick her
          does it mean i should

          just as inbreeding exists, so does outbreeding
          you will find there to be pretty conclusive evidence on the consequences of both

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >i can frick her
            >does it mean i should
            Depends, is she hot?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              this u?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Woah, hey.
                Fricking your hot sister or committing murder is one thing, but I draw the line at cannabilism or making deals with the devil.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How can you say you love her if you're unwilling to ear her poop?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          there's no physical boundary between me and my sister
          i can frick her
          does it mean i should

          just as inbreeding exists, so does outbreeding
          you will find there to be pretty conclusive evidence on the consequences of both

          besides, not my point. biological possibility does not translate 1:1 to anthropological reality.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >which would've been several hundred times more powerful than the combined arsenal of every nuke on earth detonating at the same time
    100% made up

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    While nuclear war wouldn't have wiped out humanity completely it would be civilization destroying.
    Every industry would likely be near inoperable, which would quickly lead to dwindling resources and famine.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Absolutely. Not directly due to the impact/radiation, of course, but because of secondary and tertiary side-effects. That is: complete collapse of the global economy and logistics chain. 99% of all casualties would be in the months-years after the initial exchange, due to famine, disease, and fighting over the remaining food.

      It would also mean that humanity would never again reach the modern era as we'd have to work our way back from practically the stone age but without the readily available resources needed to facilitate that

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I really don't think so, among other things because you would need to effectively annihilate every single major human settlement, I know most of the people here are proud westerners but industrial and electric knowledge along with the body of knowledge needed to sustain it is spread across the entirety of the Third World, you will not only need to nuke all the major capitals but also virtually every city, factory and military outpost in the world on purpose, as well as every single major fuel source on the planet, and even then there is always the chance you let alive some small cadres of people with enough knowledge to build anything from aeolic to chemical engines.

        Consider oil, destroying oil reserves would require you to not just nuke the infrastructure but also deposits buried under tens or even hundreds of meters of rock, also you would need to vaporize all the hundreds of thousands of tons of refined metal, while rust and erosion may render them useless this will take many decades.

        You can also sustain a decent sized human population using mushrooms and guinea pigs as well as other crops and animals which aren't that sun dependent during the most brutal years of a nuclear winter, the peoples in the Andes and Himalayas as well as the Antarctic Circle have managed to develop agrarian societies in regions where there shouldn't have been any civilization at all, and they managed to sustain populations in the tens of thousands before the Green Revolution, oil based fertilizers, combustion engines and high yield crops.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Dude, a nuclear exchange releases enormous quantities of sooth into the atmosphere which frick up the climate completely for decades. A phenomeno which also has been observed in massive volcanic eruptions. (Like the Krakatoa eruption)
          Furthermore large scale use of nukes would destroy the ozone layer leading to an enormous increase of cosmic radiation onto the surface of the earth causing even more damage to food production and human health in general.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Reminder: according to the 'nuclear winter' models, the 1991 Gulf War should have lowered global temperatures by 0.5C, instead of what really happened: nothing.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Stoneage? The inert machines we have could still operate and a lot of infrastructure might still exist. The main issue is unironically the supply chain shitting itself because it means global famine.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Also nuclear winter is way overblown. Post-nukes is a massive setback but you'd mostly be going to 1890s level of stuff at the worst.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I doubt you could even wipe out a billion.
        A billion is nothing if you're talking about a global catastrophe, Anon. If the supply chain networks that keep people fed collapsed in any major industrialized country you would see an outbreak of starvation and disease that would put Europe in 1346 to shame.

        The resources are more available now than they would be in the past for the most part. We've moved billions of tons of metals to the surface and any surviving humans would be able to scavenge scrap metal etc. for generations. Instead of having to mine things like iron or go through the crazy extraction process to get aluminum, you could just yank the hood off an old car, cut it up, and fashion the sheet metal into whatever you want*.

        Finding a single supply depot full of coal or something would be enough for a small community to last decades, and by then they would have learned how to make charcoal from wood.

        *It's worth noting that there were Inuits in Greenland that had iron knives despite not having any metallurgy. How? They found a big iron rich meteorite and they were just chipping chunks of it off and making small blades.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but without the readily available resources needed to facilitate that
        This is a stock phrase but doesn't really hold up to any analysis. Cheap access to virgin forest and fossil fuels would be the only thing affected by a retry on civilization, but it's not like as if rebuilding that infrastructure actually requires cheap energy in the first place.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          fossil fuels is obviously the main one.
          we'd be steampunk for a while

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        On the plus side, there will be surface and near-surface deposits of refined metals

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        bro all the metal that our ancestors spent their lifetimes digging out of the ground would literally just be all over the roads, buildings etc. lmfao.
        We'd bounce back - probably to greater heights than we ever have reached. Canticle for leibowitz is a pretty good representation of what would happen.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        lol, we have done it 5-6 times before anon, this isn't new.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Absolutely. Not directly due to the impact/radiation, of course, but because of secondary and tertiary side-effects. That is: complete collapse of the global economy and logistics chain. 99% of all casualties would be in the months-years after the initial exchange, due to famine, disease, and fighting over the remaining food.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    werner herzog recently made a beautiful documentary about volcanoes, and mankinds fascination with them throughout history. how we're all here because of volcanoes, and how we will one day all die because of volcanoes. check it out

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >india
    shit op shit claim shit thread

    thanks for shitting

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    there is only one volcano while with nukes you have multiple of them going off in multiple areas

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    radiation is kinda uhhh there you know? its not like the explosion was caused by anything similar to how a nuke and i think "which would've been several hundred times more powerful than the combined arsenal of every nuke on earth detonating at the same time" is completely made up, and even if it was the radiation and fallout and other factors would make it atleast twice as dangerous

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >radiation is kinda uhhh there you know?
      plants and animals survived in chernobyl
      people survived hiroshima

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >was there ever any real danger of nuclear war wiping out the majority of humans? I doubt you could even wipe out a billion.
    There was and there is an extremely real danger, and a true all-out nukefest will kill more than 1 billion. The entire world's infrastructure would collapse. A billion just starving for lack of food in the first year is a conservative estimate.

    The Toba event reduced humanity to a total of between about 2000 to 7000 human beings on the entire planet. I don't know what you think "any real danger" means, but that's an incredibly real danger. It is possible (according to DNA analysis) that all modern humans are descended from as few as six females.

    Is that "real" enough?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The Toba event reduced humanity to a total of between about 2000 to 7000 human beings on the entire planet.
      complete pointless number homosexual without how many humans were there before that

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's not how it works, you double Black personhomosexual.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If we are all inbreds from 6 females that explains how people before lived to 200 years and were giants.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >a reminder of that thing that happened 65million years ago…

    Anon what the frick do you think birds are descended from? Chicxulub hit with the impact several billion nukes.

    Life usually finds a way…

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, but what happened to the non-avian dinosaurs and the other 75% of all species that stopped existing in the K-T extinction? Just because all.life wasn't fricked and in a few tens of millions of years the octopi will figure out space flight doesn'tean that humans wouldn't be totally fricked.

      The higher up a species is in the food chain, the more vulnerable it is to systemic disruptions. Nuclear war could absolutely lead to human extinction and it wouldn't even be hard.

      >it was thought that the blast wiped out humanity

      Who the frick is writing this then? Someone that thought they descended from foxes instead?

      >science man: yeah so this volcano may have made [region x] totally uninhabitable for humans and killed everyone in [radius y]
      >journo: so you're saying it killed all humans?
      Journalists usually get any sort of technical news so fricking wrong that it almost comes out the opposite what their source says.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Nuclear war could absolutely lead to human extinction and it wouldn't even be hard.

        I would be

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Yeah, but what happened to the non-avian dinosaurs and the other 75% of all species that stopped existing in the K-T extinction?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          til: looney tunes was right about gravity

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The energy released from the explosion would cause the ground to ring like a bell and act like a liquid instead of a solid as the shock wave traveled away from the impact.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      birds existed at the time of dinosaurs. They didn't descend from them. For one darwinism is wrong on species to species evolution.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Where from did birds come?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That anon probably doesn't know what a Sauropsid is.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        found the gullible Black person duped by discovery "science" televangelists

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          not one darwinist has ever provided any observed proof of evolution. How did non living compounds develop life? Where are the missing links? Why can't scientists create new species or life from non living compounds in labs? Observation and reproduction ar necessary for your claims

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Where are the missing links?
            It sounds like you might be one of them.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What variant of COVID are we on?

            Weird that the Chinese had to cry uncle on omicron if omicron doesn’t exist.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You're being trolled.
              They don t believe the nonsense they're posting.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >not one darwinist has ever provided any observed proof of evolution
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430337/

            >How did non living compounds develop life?
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_chemistry

            >Where are the missing links?
            missing links to what? what does this even mean? also i agree with

            >Where are the missing links?
            It sounds like you might be one of them.

            >Why can't scientists create new species or life from non living compounds in labs?
            we're not quite there yet, but research is ongoing. we'll get there eventually
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3920166/
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29113-x

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >it was thought that the blast wiped out humanity

    Who the frick is writing this then? Someone that thought they descended from foxes instead?

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A nuclear war wouldn't be so bad has to be one of the most moronic recurring memes around here

    sotiresome.jpg

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It plunged the world into a global cooling period that lasted thousands of years. It certainly caused a mass extinction event.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >several hundred times more powerful than the combined arsenal of every nuke on earth detonating at the same time, and several thousand times more powerful than Tsar Bomba.
    Yeah, without the nuclear fallout, you idiot.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >nuclear fallout
      Oh, no! Not a statistically significant increase in the chances of developing cancer over the course of your life!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh wonderful, you read one of those "nukes aren't real" posts and thought it was true. What a unique child.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You're not one of those hippies who think radiation instantly melts you into goo are you?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Unless everybody was secretly building dirty bombs, most of the radiation would be gone in a few weeks.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unga bunga hunter-gatherers from the Pleistocene were already running around in small tribal units with stone tools. Modern humans are reliant on modern medicine, tech and (most importantly) trade to live the way we do. Nuclear war was never likely to end all human life, just human life as we know it.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    a modern nuclear war would kill hundreds of millions but wouldn't even remotely end humanity or complex society. Nuclear winter is a meme but a war would mean 3rd world haiti tier totally fricked status for any country heavily nuked. Life would be back to normal in 20-50 years depending on who is or isn't involved.

    As far as colonising space it could go either way. It would create a major backlash in pacifism and a sense of never again (it happened after both world wars) as well as global unity (the UN and League of Nations were both ascendant after each war). So just as likely the utter pointless futility of a massive nuclear exchange would bring humanity together.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People tend to forget that major war, nuclear weapon exchange or natural catastrophy, major sun storm, etc., can easily damage any of the 436 nuclear reactors in operation in 32 countries around the world, like happened in Fukushima, with radiation amounts and effects on living creatures far more worse and long lasting compared to nuclear weapons.

    Surprisingly nuclear power plants tend to need also outside grid power to operate and to sustain the safety of operational and spent fuel rods from overheating, resulting cook-off, burning, reactor melt-down, blast and subsequent release of high level leathal radioation to surroundings and atmosphere. Running down a plant in a safe way can take years.

    Highly skilled personnel is needed to daily operate, maintain, as well as run-down a nuclear plant, again working for years.

    Hence in any catastrofy, disaster, major conflict or civil unrest, the nuclear power plants a major risk for all of humanity.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Rocks will change that OP.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you put every warhead into a big pile it's not going to do near the damage that hitting thousands of separate targets will.

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