Sir david attenborough

Now- one could say: “you don’t need to destroy all of China! Key targets...” full stop. Several problems. Undoubtably China has mobile and stationary assets we can’t account for. Anything less than a total annihilation of the country leaves the attacker open to counter attack, and even then counter attack is still likely. What’s more, the nuclear exchange likely to occur would cause environmental damage that would very likely cause irreparable damage long after man was extinct in natural course.

The idea that this mass extinction would “save the environment” is patently false. The environment will persist with or without man, it will adapt to changing conditions and continue. Micro organisms and insects are far harder than us, and less complex life adapts much faster to new conditions. “Saving the environment” is about preserving a state where ourselves and most current complex organisms can thrive.

That’s without even factoring in the destabilization effects globally, hardened assets which can withstand nuclear strike, etc. what’s more, the cost of the initial operation likely, and certainly the total cost of the ensuing conflicts, is more than enough to simply pay to upgrade China to greener technologies, possibly even advance several generations of such technologies-

And while it seems counter intuitive, population is our friend there. See- developing economies tend to use cheaper technologies- read, dirtier technologies, because either and/or the economic system isn’t strong enough to support a standard of living and supply demand, or the growth of that economy hasn’t been strong enough to propel and support development of more efficient and advanced methods.

The loss of a major world economy, and again- the ripples of the inevitable conflicts to follow, would likely set back industry and development greatly and actually take us further from a “green” near future. Conflict breeds advancement yes. But conflict is the key word. Eking for survival in a post nuclear apocalypse doesn’t breed advancement. Most people are reduced to surviving, energy is expended rebuilding what is lost instead of discovering the new. Old, simpler and less efficient technologies which are rugged and don’t require complex maintenance or manufacture become favored.

Of course we have little factual basis for such predictions- but by the math we still need more warheads than we have, and the environmental impact of mining and refining and detonating that much nuclear material must be considered as well.

even if we nuked key china targets and they didnt nuke back the change that even just that small amount of nukes would have would be enough to change the global temps enough to make farming no longer possible on a large enough scale that humans as a whole would be fucked. It only takes somewhere in the range of 100ish nukes to completely ruin the planet to the point of humans not being a thing anymore. Less than half that would cause great amounts of problems for humans and fuck the environment as a whole to a great degree. This is all assuming that we only used the minimum required nukes to get rid of all key targets and they didnt respond with nukes themselves. Remember that china is huge as fuck and its filled to the brim with things youd have to nuke. In the more realistic case of nuking all KNOWN key targets youd ruin the world to a degree and then china would launch the nukes they still could further ruining the world to a greater degree possibly to the point of making us die out

@guest hello, hi @bethorien, I guess your fan club came out with the downvotes Guest. I can just see someone starring at their monitor, phone reading facts and yelling "NO NO NO" like a violated simpleton.

Instead of regulating people and trying to improve the environment, let's nuke two of the biggest populations in the world and fuck the world beyond saving.

@popsy- hi! Yeah. The fans seem to be active this summer. I actually enjoy the downvotes- they generally come with no rebuttal. Each time I see it I tend to just smirk and picture a sad angry person without any relevant retort- or a sadder angrier person who didn’t even read it but had to DV because they saw my name. It’s like being a boogey monster that haunts their subconscious in such a way that for all the hate- they can’t escape the gravity pulling them to you.

Haha

ever so often one or two will come online and decide to downvote all of my comments and then disappear for like a month or so.

I’ve noticed that too for you bethorien. I just assume it’s because you have opinions and aren’t afraid to speak on them, but those people are afraid to challenge your intelligence and eloquence.

What makes it more pitiful , is that it is usually jokes or facts that get downvotes