It just seems intuitively wrong to me that all-out nuclear war could end human life on earth as well as human civilization. The yields of nuclear devices are just to low and there is too much land for a nuclear exchange to fulfill the predictions of the non-proliferation advocates. I think a lot of this is driven by green politics and the hysterical mindset attending this ideology. Few of the nuclear weapons in countries' arsenals exceed one megatonne and their targets are usually military installations, bases, airfields, early warning stations, etc that are far away from major population centres. Communications and infrastructure targets that overlap with civilian populations tend to be tertiary targets. Generally speaking, governments do not target cities just to kill as many people as possible. I feel certain that in an all-out nuclear exchange, there will still be technology, infrastructure, government, agriculture and major human settlements. The only targets that require groundburst nuclear attacks and thus cause longterm nuclear fallout are missile silos in the middle of nowhere, e.g., the Dakotas and parts of Siberia. And my suspicions have been validated by this nuclear scientist who comments on scientifically inaccurate and hysterical yt videos about nuclear war:>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-eLNCCQXr8
>>532864229>Generally speaking, governments do not target cities just to kill as many people as possible.So WW2 didn't happen?
>>532864298Hiroshima hosted a major military base.
>>532864229>The only targets that require groundburst nuclear attacksBro
>>532864229we will find out soon enough
>>532864569are you so certain a nuclear war will happen anytime soon? would be nice if it causes billions of shitskin deaths
>>532864677Oh yeah those Dotheads and Pakis are definitely going to bbq each other within our lifetimes.
>>532864229nukes are fake>b-but I watched the jewish movie!
>>532864391no radiation >b-because the bomb exploded very high or old nukes are not radioactive or something
>>532864992
>>532864807it shall be phenomenal
>>532864229Most people will just end up starving to death. It could very well end civilization, if not life.
>>532864229Physical effects from the nukes aren't the biggest problem. Dozens or hundreds of cities will be destroyed and governments collapsed. Starvation will be the biggest killer with smashed supply lines just the start of the problems. How will farmers plant without fuel and fertiliser? How will electicity be generated when we can't get fuel or workers to the power plants?> Generally speaking, governments do not target cities just to kill as many people as possible.But they target them nevertheless to destroy government structures and manufacturing facilities. Just look at what happened to Germany and Japan during world war 2. Far more cities are in range of modern missiles than were in range of aircraft in WWII.
>>532864229Humanity would survive, barely. It would take a long time to rebuild. The nuclear winter would be a mass extinction event though.
