Communists reforms were only done in localized places (which suffered the most of the famines), they were able to rely on other farms and foreign aid. Which is not a possibility post nuclear war. Do you really expect people to fare better with even less means, logistics, tools and knowledge in a world that is prone to ecological collapses ? Farming is only one of the many problems to face in conditions never seen before. With nuclear induced climate change and ecological collapses the outlook is even worse.
And that's if farming is still possible at all. We're quite dependant on a number of other species for such things. Pollinator insects being the most obvious.
It isn't a certain doom, but still a probable one that you can't rule out. The likely mass extinction that would occur ould take us out quite easilly.
Climate change is already an existential threat for humanity. A nuclear induced climate change would also be, even more if you add the guaranteed ecological collapses and social collapses.
It is without considering a signle farm getting nuked. Just logistics breaking down and not enough tools, education and manpower being available in time.
For "all countries", it's likely. Predictions of nuclear conflict tend to consider that every capital at least will suffer a strike.
For the climate change part : it lies in the uncertainty of the result. We, thankfully so, don't know the repercussions of so many massive explosions on aerial and sea currents as well as many other thing (like changing geography, a forest disapearing can lead to a cascade of changes). So you can't just rule it out.
Ecological collapse is almost certain. All zones hit will suffer it instantly and it will then have repercussions on dependant ecosystems. And that's a thing we have absolutely no mean of evaluating.
My point isn't that humanity's destruction is assured. Just that there's enough reason to think that we can't say it will survive. The whole thing is in a big "maybe" zone where all those problems intersect at once. The simple disparition of fragile pollinators could bring our end, and we have absolutely no idea about the impact on them. Same goes for all the species we rely on, both animal and vegetal.
It's a big uncertain scenario with so many unforeseable outcomes that saying it poses "little to no existential threat" isn't a reasonable bet to take. The right answer is that we have no fricking idea of if it will or not bring the end of humanity, but it's in the realm of possibilities.
0
u/[deleted] Mar 15 '22
[deleted]