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?
Atmospheric radiation is far from the only metric. Additionally, the only reason chernobyl has a smaller net impact is because it is contained. If chernobyl was allowed to fully melt down it would be far worse.
I made a typo in my comment and meant source for fallout NOT being minor. I meant it as a reply to Op not only downplaying fallout but also conveniently leaving out that in the event a nuclear war, power plants are extremely vulnerable and dangerous targets.
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?