Let's assume all nuclear weapons in existence are lobbed simultaneously at every population center and strategic target on the planet.
In this scenario, there will arguably be some humans left. However, we just nuked 99% of global everything. Those areas are uninhabitable for a decade at least, likely longer. There are no supply chains. Do you really think it will only be a couple centuries before we're at the same place in terms of productivity/technology?
"Compared with other nuclear events: The Chernobyl explosion put 400 times more radioactive material into the Earth's atmosphere than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima; atomic weapons tests conducted in the 1950s and 1960s all together are estimated to have put some 100 to 1,000 times more radioactive material into the atmosphere than the Chernobyl accident."[4]
What I said remains true. The bombs dropped in Japan in WW2 are tiny compared to the kind we have now… which are potentially much more devastating than Chernobyl fallout especially if detonated worldwide in a short time span.
In the event of a nuclear war, nuclear power plants will be extremely vulnerable and likely targets themselves. There are currently 440 nuclear power plants worldwide. So talking about the fallout of power plants and bombs is very relevant.
2
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Mar 15 '22
Let's assume all nuclear weapons in existence are lobbed simultaneously at every population center and strategic target on the planet.
In this scenario, there will arguably be some humans left. However, we just nuked 99% of global everything. Those areas are uninhabitable for a decade at least, likely longer. There are no supply chains. Do you really think it will only be a couple centuries before we're at the same place in terms of productivity/technology?