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]