Always a good joke, and also a good caution. That said- total nuclear war MIGHT not be the hype it’s been made out to be. It would be bad- let’s not underscore that. There are about 13,000 nuclear explosive weapons known on earth. Not all of them have launch vehicles or might get a chance to launch etc. some percentage are most likely not really usable due to age and other issues.
There are about 10,000 cities on earth. The math seems to suggest we could destroy every city on earth- but not really. Unless all powers adopted a strategy of specifically trying to destroy cities- a large number of nuclear weapons would be targeted to strategic targets like military installations. We also must remember that many people don’t actually live in cities. Then factor in that certain hardened targets, strategically critical targets, and large major cities would likely be recieving more than one bomb. Lastly, factor in that if there was a major nuclear war, the world nuclear powers would…
… likely focus their nuclear arsenals on each other. Certain countries may not be targeted by a single weapon. When we look at a country like China or Russia, the sheer vastness let’s us do some back of the envelope math based on test data that suggests it really isn’t feasible for the most likely nuclear arsenals that would bear against them to cover all that mass. When we look at both- it basically becomes impossible. Now, the sheer volume of nuclear fallout would pose health risks to even those outside the blast areas or not targeted- but that theoretically could be managed to some degree and mostly would increase cancers and other issues long term. The “nuclear winter” scenario may be possible- but many simulations and studies say it is more myth than fact. There could be long term environmental consequences or even mass extinctions or slow long term extinctions of species and ecosystems or other consequences-
Large bodies of water may become irradiated and water could become a major issue in many more places across the globe. There are lots of variables and unknowns but it is very possible that while there would be set backs from the destruction and pollution of infrastructure and land and the inherent instability caused by the death toll and other factors stemming from the exchange, that much industry and technology and likely much knowledge would survive. In the most impacted areas of any life remained it might be more “sticks and rocks,” but for large areas of the globe there may be some regression until new infrastructure and resources can be secured.
So a total nuclear war would be very bad for basically everyone, and it could kill all life or it could just be akin to one of the mass catastrophes through human history which changed the course of events but by and large didn’t “reset us to zero.”
There are about 10,000 cities on earth. The math seems to suggest we could destroy every city on earth- but not really. Unless all powers adopted a strategy of specifically trying to destroy cities- a large number of nuclear weapons would be targeted to strategic targets like military installations. We also must remember that many people don’t actually live in cities. Then factor in that certain hardened targets, strategically critical targets, and large major cities would likely be recieving more than one bomb. Lastly, factor in that if there was a major nuclear war, the world nuclear powers would…