Nuclear war would be a major inconvenience, but it wouldn't nearly destroy the world.

mcv 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unless it's a very limited nuclear war, it would probably destroy the world as we know it, but that's a vague and flexible concept. It would likely destroy countries, societies, our way of life. Many people would die, but humanity would survive.

Some countries might survive. If the war takes place on the northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere might be much less affected.

▲

eru an hour ago | parent [-]

I agree. My much more limited point was that we don't actually have enough nukes to glass the planet; but I could probably have made that more explicitly.

▲

TheOtherHobbes an hour ago | parent [-]

We have enough nukes to sterilise large areas of the planet.

But most of them are tac nukes, and they don't come with the support hardware needed to deliver them to large areas of the planet.

Reality is that Europe, Russia, the US, the Middle East, India, Pakistan, and parts of the Far East could have a really bad time.

But most of South America and Africa would likely survive with only economic and political damage rather than physical destruction.

	▲	eru an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Not sure sterilisation lasts long on earth: life re-claims sterilised areas. See your favourite massive volcano outbreak, or look at the Chernobyl exclusion zone. (The impact of the disaster at Chernobyl is much smaller in area than a nuclear explosion would be, of course. But life has re-conquered everything there.) In any case, I largely agree!

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]