this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
63 points (98.5% liked)
History
774 readers
10 users here now
Welcome to c/History @ Mander.xyz!
Notice Board
- 2023-07-01: We are looking for mods. Send a dm to @[email protected] if interested! This is a work in progress, please don't mind the mess.
Work in progress...
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Be kind and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
Similar Communities
Sister Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
Plants & Gardening
Physical Sciences
Humanities and Social Sciences
Memes
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just to add more, I know a few veterans (not WWII) whose opinion on every international disagreement is to "nuke them all" (meaning anyone against the USA).
well if it's any condolence, the current military leadership is highly opposed to nuclear arms being used in war, period at this point.
Trump tried to suggest it a few times, didn't go well.
That does help actually. Thank you
and besides, if we ever did decide to use them, china has nuclear weapons, north korea apparently does, and russia absolutely does. India has the capability in theory to produce them. And iran is pushing to make them, so. Most of the EU has possession of some US nuclear weapons, the UK specifically has their own i believe. Unsure of how independent they are, but they're out there.
We would be the least likely to use them in large scale outside of MAD attacks. NK is probably the most likely, as they would likely fly over russian territory, and that's kinda fucky wucky.
as we haven't even counted the nuclear subs yet, both the US and russia, and china naturally have them, and those are basically automatically insured MAD. If a nuclear weapon were to ever be detonated outside of a test (which is also unlikely due to technical advantages on our side) the entire world would probably collapse within about 3 hours.
Yikes. I don't know if that's reassuring or not. Although if the world collapsed I wouldn't have to pay for insurance anymore 🤔
well it depends, if you're in a large city (NYC and cali in particular, also probably texas, and maybe the midwest more generically. If you live in the EU you're probably just fucked. Africa ironically might be perfectly fine), you're probably dying instantly. If you live in the middle of nowhere land, you're probably far enough out that you won't immediately notice it, though everything around you is going to be fucked, and the global economy will collapse pretty much immediately.
neither putin, nor mr winnie the pooh of china land (whose name i can never spell or remember) will want the global economic collapse, north korea probably wouldn't care, but they would all starve immediately, so.
Basically the entire civilization of earth in regards to nuclear warfare is a precarious game of jenga, and if anything gets upset, the entire thing comes crashing down. And as a result, it's so unlikely that anything will happen, that it might as well be a zero.
More than likely, if nuclear war WERE to happen, the global economy would have already collapsed, the military forces of the world will probably all be skirmishing constantly, and people will not be doing well to begin with. So by the time you have to worry about a nuclear war, you'll either be dead, or so focused on not dying it probably won't matter anymore.
nuclear warfare is kind of like the street fight equivalent of bringing a pipe bomb. A little silly, but i don't think it's ever happened.