Tsar Bomba had a yield of 50 megatons. The largest US nuke was 25 megatons.

Tsar Bomba had a yield of 50 megatons. The largest US nuke was 25 megatons. The asteroid which killed the dinosaurs was 100 MILLION megatons, roughly 25000 times the global nuclear stockpile. Yet, mammals still surved the event. The Wilkes Land crater suggests a blast event five times greater had occured previously, but life continued on. Would total nuclear war even be able to kill 10% of humans alive?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    what if they were salted?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Chernobyl wildlife seems fine. The HUMAN apocalypse is mostly due to civilization collapse and global winter. Even salted bombs would poison just the hit areas and few hundred miles down-wind. On global scale that's just few more spots humans can't go, like mountain ranges, deserts and seas.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      shut the frick up you moron.

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

      Tsar Bomba had a yield of 50 megatons. The largest US nuke was 25 megatons. The asteroid which killed the dinosaurs was 100 MILLION megatons, roughly 25000 times the global nuclear stockpile. Yet, mammals still surved the event. The Wilkes Land crater suggests a blast event five times greater had occured previously, but life continued on. Would total nuclear war even be able to kill 10% of humans alive?

      >Would total nuclear war even be able to kill 10% of humans alive?
      it really depends on how well you disrupted commercial activities. honestly I think it would be an extremely rough couple of years, but most people would make it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      People would die from high blood pressure

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      yt ppl dont season they nukes

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The vast majority of humans on Earth depend on global trade and industrialized agriculture for food. The political and economic collapse that a nuclear war would bring on would be the main killer, because it would disrupt the food supply.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    farmers with good diversification might be ok. Urban normies would starve.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      no more fuel for tractors and lifestock all die from fallout poisoning

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        *runs tractor on veg oil*
        nothin personnel arab

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It take about an acre of oil seed crops to produce enough biodiesel to farm an acre of land with machinery, give or take as there are multiple variables but, as you can see, this will immediately reduce the land available for food production by 50% or thereabouts, so half of the humans are starving to death, more if distribution networks remain broken.
          An interesting aside (speaking of biodiesel) is that, according to institutions who study these things, is that the estimated planet wide food production capacity, if all farming had to be would only feed about 1.5 billion people.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Better use alchohol

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you are aware agriculture predates refined petroleum, yes?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, which is why if you car died you’d definitely go and get your horse and carriage right? Oh no you wouldn’t. Modern farming is entirely separate from pre-modern agriculture and in the event if collapse an adaptation would not be quickly seen

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >and in the event if collapse an adaptation would not be quickly seen
            Depending on how you define "quickly seen" it absolutely would; even if you're weeding with a trowel instead of glyphosate and shucking corn by hand, it certainly beats starving to death. On the other hand, a post-nuclear paradigm of agriculture would probably take a while to emerge.

            >fallout
            Not a concern with modern thermonuclear weapons fella

            kek this, the fallout meme from nuclear weapons is such a meme, even more so with thermonuclear. And even when going regular, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were perfectly livable less than a week in. Other than wood still burning, that is.

            Fusion weapons are much more clean, yeah, but a major exchange would have a lot of ground bursts which would kick up more than enough radioactive shit into the air to be a problem.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Still an order of magnitude less radiation than what was left behind in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, its not nothing, but there wont be mass animal extinction from radioactive fallout.
              Not starving to death or being murdered in the insuing chaos would be most everyones primary concern.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >fallout
        Not a concern with modern thermonuclear weapons fella

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          kek this, the fallout meme from nuclear weapons is such a meme, even more so with thermonuclear. And even when going regular, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were perfectly livable less than a week in. Other than wood still burning, that is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the fallout meme
            Heh, go back to your flat earth cult, schizo. 😉

            https://thebulletin.org/2019/07/trinity-the-most-significant-hazard-of-the-entire-manhattan-project/
            https://www.nti.org/atomic-pulse/downwind-of-trinity-remembering-the-first-victims-of-the-atomic-bomb/

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ehhh as someone with a fuel alcohol still, yeah it would be harder, you'd need to grow more corn and shit for alky fuel and probably find something to mix with the ethanol to have it not be bad at low temps, but multi fuel engines run OK on alky + shit like xylene, and with a little tuning so can gas and diesel. It's also not hard to run shit on LNG or LP
        with a little work (which we have tons of).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sure, but you would have to kiss machinery bye-bye once they inevitably break down. That goes for fuel too, unless you somehow know someone that can convert the engine to use alternative fuel sources.

      If you fix those two problems, congratulations, you brought back urban centers to staff the workshops and man the other supply chains meant to supply them with what they need, plus the other needs of the urban center.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Humanity would probably survive. Human civilization as we know it would cease to be and not recover for at least a few hundred, more likely a few thousand years. It is questionable if humanity would ever reclaim its modern-day technological peak since we already used up so many natural resources.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >tfw you have to reset on hard mode: no fossil fuels

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Pretty much. The nukes would probably just kill millions. It's the resulting breakdown of infrastructure, essential services and food production that will kill billions when economic hubs like New York, Beijing or various European capitals get reduced to smoking craters. Without the masses of fossil fuels that enabled the industrial revolution, long-term recovery over the following millennia also looks bleak.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ypu dont need fossil fuels
        You can use nuclear energy and etanol/alcohol fuel
        Everything will be more expensive but its fine

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          So we just need to restart ethanol production on an industrial scale and reinvent nuclear energy without easily accessible fossil fuels that brought the industrial revolution about?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Don't forget: making nitrates using old hydraulic cylinders as Haber-Bosch catalysts.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Humanity would probably survive. Human civilization as we know it would cease to be and not recover for at least a few hundred, more likely a few thousand years. It is questionable if humanity would ever reclaim its modern-day technological peak since we already used up so many natural resources.

        >the next dark age will be followed up by nuclear-powered steamboats with ye olde black powder cannons

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >he thinks civilization would come back
      All the shallow mines have been cleaned out. There is no fricking reset. The people you think that would rebuild would be unable because the world would be Barren to anyone except for those before the collapse. You can’t recycle all the shit we already pulled out.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Humanity would survive because although there would be a giga die-off, random population groups would be absolutely fine through the happenstance of geography. Sure, it would be absolutely shit for them for a while but they would survive as societies.

        It would require multiple hits across the planet to hurl us back into the stone-age.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >papa, can we harvest the giant accumulations of refined metal humanity piled up into easily accessible scrapyards and cities?
        >no my child, we cannot because some moron on PrepHole has a terminal lack of imagination

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The poorer people of the world (excluding Russia ofc, but they dont count as people) where farming is still done mostly manually or with animals would probably come of relativly well. Not only because farming would still be possible, and people knows how to do it, but also because nobody would care to nuke some african shithole.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >move to Africa, and get fricked by climate change. OR stay in america and be reduced to ash by nuclear war.
      You decide!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I choose NZ

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Billionaire's Slave it is!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >not spreading rumors in the bunker to get all the billionaire inhabitants to turn on eachother

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >not removing your slave's tongues and eyes like falmer
              Ngmi

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Would total nuclear war even be able to kill 10% of humans alive?
    Probably. I could see a frick-off full release between all the Western nuclear powers, China, and Russia doing between 400 and 800 million in the strike phase. Way more would die in the follow-on frickery that would ensue, but nowhere near the total population would die.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      To think, you'd have to nuke 1 million chinese everyday for 4 years straight to wipe them all out (not taking into account population growth during that time).

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >mammals still surved the event
    Post pictures of the mammals that survived. And, address the 65 million years of evolution that it took them to recover. Because, dinosaurs did NOT recover.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > gators, crocs
      > turtles
      > komodo dragons, monitor lizards
      some of them did, without much change

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > "survived" = "recovered"
        Oh, lad ...

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Avian dinosaurs survived and be came birds.

        Only the non-avian dinos died off.

        But that was a small extinction event. Some extinction events took out 90% of all life on earth. Nukes would be rather small compared to what happened in the far past.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        None of those are mammals you fricking moron

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >> gators, crocs
        >> turtles
        >> komodo dragons, monitor lizards
        None of these are dinosaurs you fricking moron

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It didn't take 65 million years of evolution for mammals to "recover" the only ones around at the time were shitty little ones, they then evolved to fill the niche left by Dinosaurs.

      But plenty of reptiles other than dinosaurs, and birds their direct descendants survived.

      The fact even coldblooded animals made it through a long period with reduced sunlight says it all.

      There must have been some specific vulnerability for non-avian dinosaurs that led to such an otherwise varied group going completely extinct all at once.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Birds are dinosaurs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      All birds are decendants of dinosaurs morono

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Would total nuclear war even be able to kill 10% of humans alive?
    Depends where they fell but unlikely 800 million is a lot, more like 200 million maximum before somewhere like Russia or China ceases to be able to launch anymore. Most nukes are not targeting populations but the opponents nuclear assets and silos which tend to be in the middle of nowhere. Although some nations such as teh UK are rumoured to exclusively target the entire capital area of Moscow and its population in entirety from its nuclear sub deterrent. Nuclear was aside from thoe in directly hit cities and locations is a covid tier nothing burger. We have already detonated 2500 nukes in the air and at sea and on land and nothing happened. Most of them bigger than anything in use now. Will people die, sure. Will YOU die. probably not unless you are unlucky, Russian or Chinese. The third world will probably starve to death though just due to disruption in plating and harvest and trade but most of the EU and USA and Australia, Canada etc etc will be fine. After about five years even the ground zeros of direct hits can be reclaimed. The most important thing is staying inside and sheltered during fallout for a few weeks and having food and water for that and a radio so you know when there is fallout warnings. Most fallout has rapid radioactive decay and is harmless pretty quickly, Best sating on canned stuff and stuff made before the war as long as possible though. Basically a month long corvid lockdown and a big recession for a year and a lot of starving brown people. A handful of cities will get a region blasted and a fireball and get rebuilt. 50 years after Nagasaki and Hiroshima and Dresden people living there don;t even think about their destruction. There is no nuclear winter before someone brings it up, a lie introduced into academia by the KGB to support nuclear disarmament in the west and echoed in media like threads , Its probably worth it to get rid of Russia at this stage .

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Note
      All of this is assuming:
      >Russia still has working nukes/ICBMs/SRBMs
      >These that are still working are in good enough of a working order to reach their target
      >These that are in good enough working order do not get intercepted
      I wouldn't be shocked to learn that in event of a nuclear war out of the 1,600 declared deployed Russian nukes, only like 10 actually managed to detonate on target

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >some nations such as teh UK are rumoured to exclusively target the entire capital area of Moscow and its population in entirety from its nuclear sub deterrent

      UK deterrent policy crystalized in pre-Polaris era on ensuring high probability of being able to inflict 'unacceptable' damage to Russian population centers. Either Moscow+St Petes erased or Moscow+St Petes+3 other large cities partially erased or Moscow+St Petes fine but 20 other cities completely erased.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Be some Pacific tribesman
    >Never knew the world outside of this island to begin with
    >Maybe saw one of those metal birds a few times in the distance
    >One day, hear a few rumbles and perhaps feel a breeze
    >Shrug and go back to fishing with sharpened stick
    >Have zero clue the world outside of this island just ended itself

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I wish I could find a book like this. Some uncontacted tribe slowly climbing up the technological ladder then finding out the rest of the world blew itself up ages ago.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Wouldn't happen, they've got no reason to advance. Without a catalyst forcing them to adapt in order to survive it is highly unlikely that any tribe in the modern age would ever need/desire to come up with any new technological advancements. Also considering the razor thin population sizes and general fragility of their societies any major problem is more likely to wipe them out completely instead of sparking some major burst of innovation.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, but that's why the genre is called fiction.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then just go watch planet of the apes dingus

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0
    Direct deaths are only around 10-20% of the death toll.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nuclear soot injection is a meme made up by moralizing nuclear scientists. If particulate debris were capable of the effects this paper claims, human civilization would have already collapsed a century ago.

      Same is true for geoengineering btw, scientist opposed to it constantly rig the models by running them with insanely pessimistic assumptions. If you use reasonable estimates instead the effect sizes become smaller and more manageable.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Every model by zealot climate scientists needs to do mental gymnastics where the soot is perfectly capable of blocking sunlight, but has absolutely no greenhouse effect.
      It also requires nuclear firestorms to be capable of producing levels of soot that have never been recorded in a test environment, or most models of nuclear explosions.
      The fact the article thinks 2 billion people would die from India and Pakistan's mini nukes is hilariously stupid and adds to the detractor's point if anything.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    so what you're saying is that we don't have to feel bad if we nuke russia?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      do it, pls

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I hope to god we do.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Thousands of nukes exploded since Hiroshima. It's the way how do you use them dictate their destructibility.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Don't worry anon, apophis is totally going to miss you.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Would life after the shock really be that bad?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Would total nuclear war even be able to kill 10% of humans alive?
      A better question would be "after one year, will 10% of humanity remain alive?". The main killer from nuclear war isn't the nuclear weapons, it's everything else. It happens metaphorically overnight rather than literally but much more quickly than you'd think you end up up with people starving and/or shitting themselves to death in a cascade that you can't really address until it stops happening.

      >Would life after the shock really be that bad?
      When defining what society loses in an apocalyptic event like a nuclear exchange it's important to draw a distinction between knowledge and expertise - even if sewage treatment plants stop working, humanity isn't going to forget about germ theory. Even if fields on earth lie fallow for years, humanity isn't going to forget about the nitrogen cycle. Even after the last scrap of smokeless powder is used, the principles behind self-loading weapons aren't going to be lost.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If population centres are targetted you can hit that mark pretty quickly. Nukes are not like an asteroid on a random tragectory.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's only a few hundred million humans alive on this planet rn, give or take. The rest are just some fatherless biped offshoot pretending to be

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The aftermath of every major metropolitan area getting glassed will cause such a disruption in our civilization, the bombs wont kill that many people, the chaos, war and starvation afterwards would.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The recently discontinued Proton rocket was originally designed to lob 3 Tsar Bombas anywhere in the world in 30 minutes. The soviets scrapped the idea of a 300 Megaton ICBM after a few years, but kept the launch platform for launching Salyut space stations and later on MIR and ISS modules.

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