Japan had the infrastructure left to rebuild those cities. If a full nuclear exchange occurs, there will be no infrastructure, no healthy land for agriculture, no population to rebuild anything, there is just no possibility of recovery. I’m sorry but your take is unhinged.
True, I do enjoy reading more. Any literature you can recommend on the topic? I’m mostly relying on my understanding of nuclear famine, and the logical consequences of destroying vast amounts of infrastructure and population.
Well, I understand now why the kremlin propaganda wave the nuclear threat like that. It does work.
In the meantime it didn’t take any nuke to shake the food and energy markets. A blocus in the black sea and an embargo on Russian gas was all it took. So yes, a nuclear warhead would definitely destabilise world economy. But that’s more because it’d be a war in the western world.
The problem is that you’re missing the specifics. A nuclear war wouldn’t be the destruction of the whole world. It’d be a few countries. It wouldn’t be more destabilising than covid for example. It wouldn’t be more destabilising than a war in Europe or on America’s soil. Would some government shatter? Yes. Would it be the end of world? No.
No country is planning on painting the world in nukes for the sake of maximum radiation and destruction coverage.
Global warming though is already starting to alter agriculture productivity and conditions of life. It m’s already causing problems for food, water, disasters and rising ocean levels. If you want to be scared for an actual threat, you should look this way.
I would argue that the destruction of major productive centers would be as disastrous as climate change. Why can’t both be true?
I could also be minimizing the threat of climate change by saying that the world won’t end because of it. It is an unreasonable bar however for us to consider something to be destructive. I don’t think it’s controversial to not want millions of deaths.
Incredible how we went from “I don’t know what world war 3 will be fought with, but I know that world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones” to “actually nuclear war isn’t so bad, it’s just a temporary hurdle”
Japan had the infrastructure left to rebuild those cities. If a full nuclear exchange occurs, there will be no infrastructure, no healthy land for agriculture, no population to rebuild anything, there is just no possibility of recovery. I’m sorry but your take is unhinged.
No land for agriculture would be destroyed because it wouldn’t be bombed in the first place.
Regular bombardments in Ukraine are more pouting than a nuclear bomb would be because heavy metals don’t decay as fast as radioelements in the soils.
You are ignorant. You should read more.
True, I do enjoy reading more. Any literature you can recommend on the topic? I’m mostly relying on my understanding of nuclear famine, and the logical consequences of destroying vast amounts of infrastructure and population.
Well, I understand now why the kremlin propaganda wave the nuclear threat like that. It does work.
In the meantime it didn’t take any nuke to shake the food and energy markets. A blocus in the black sea and an embargo on Russian gas was all it took. So yes, a nuclear warhead would definitely destabilise world economy. But that’s more because it’d be a war in the western world.
The problem is that you’re missing the specifics. A nuclear war wouldn’t be the destruction of the whole world. It’d be a few countries. It wouldn’t be more destabilising than covid for example. It wouldn’t be more destabilising than a war in Europe or on America’s soil. Would some government shatter? Yes. Would it be the end of world? No.
No country is planning on painting the world in nukes for the sake of maximum radiation and destruction coverage.
Global warming though is already starting to alter agriculture productivity and conditions of life. It m’s already causing problems for food, water, disasters and rising ocean levels. If you want to be scared for an actual threat, you should look this way.
I would argue that the destruction of major productive centers would be as disastrous as climate change. Why can’t both be true?
I could also be minimizing the threat of climate change by saying that the world won’t end because of it. It is an unreasonable bar however for us to consider something to be destructive. I don’t think it’s controversial to not want millions of deaths.
Because climate change will make some places, if not all, not livable for humans. Humanity is under threat of extinction.
A nuclear war will only have “local” consequences. Africa will be left untouched for example. Humanity on a large scale would be fine.
Incredible how we went from “I don’t know what world war 3 will be fought with, but I know that world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones” to “actually nuclear war isn’t so bad, it’s just a temporary hurdle”