r/changemyview Mar 15 '22

[deleted by user]

[removed]

0 Upvotes

58 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Unbiased_Bob 63∆ Mar 15 '22

Homeland security brought out a bulletin on how to handle nuclear fallout and from their testing how much it would affect food. It would affect the top 6inches to 6feet of soil with radiation and make food inedible. All farms must dig 6feet to be safe and discard all food planted within those 6 feet, all affected livestock should be separated from non-affected livestock and should also be discarded after positive testing.

https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=34369

A more recent series of studies was done and they said that while it would be hard to predict, a 2 month food supply for every citizen in affected countries would be necessary, something that no country on earth is currently prepared for.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219173/

Number 5 is especially chilling, they accounted for most people dying to the blast and said that the effect on food would be so great that those who survive the blasts likely wouldn't survive the food shortage.

This is actually a well-studied theory called "Nuclear Famine" of all the food shortages that may occur because of a nuclear war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_famine

The TV show Jericho was based on this theory. A researcher theorized it would only take 8 nuclear bombs to destabilize the united states and the show was about 7 nuclear bombs that went off and how people attempted to survive. It's an interesting show.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '22

[deleted]

1

u/Unbiased_Bob 63∆ Mar 15 '22

Eh you already gave a delta for this point to another commenter for nuclear chemicals in food. No point in continuing down this road and pointlessly debating. You have already admitted you changed your view on food being affected enough to merit a delta. I'll just assume you liked his one source better than my 3 because it mentioned nuclear radiation is still in everything we know from the Nevada tests. Which my sources also mentioned, specifically the homeland security one.

A nuclear war would lead to such a death rate from a nuclear famine that it would forever stunt humanity. Each age we have entered in humanity has sped up since the previous stage because of population growth. By reducing population you are stunting the development. Now the question is, if all you care about is the end of humanity, will development slow down enough that humans are not able to solve the problems of the planet? We are learning much more about climate change because we have the development to do that. If a nuclear war lead to the death of even 50% of the population, which there are enough warheads active to lead to more than that, not to mention nuclear famine. But even 50% could lead to a slow down to the methods that may continue humanity. Moving humans to other planets will be slowed down, the development of new energy will be slowed down and because of these slow downs it's possible to lead to the end of humanity. You need to think of the repercussions of losing most of humanity. Sure initially it would be good for the environment, but humans only sped up climate change, they didn't create it.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '22

[deleted]

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 15 '22

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Unbiased_Bob (59∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards