I suggest to read about Hiroshima, and what really happened there, and afterwards.
Here’s a good book:
Hibakusha: Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki https://a.co/d/8KS4RXC
One bomb kills people in a circle of 10 or 50 km (I forgot), and injures people maybe 100km around. Then it does damage to nature maybe even 1000 km around. I live 2000km from Chernobyl, and we had some warnings regarding vegetables for a year or so.
But the planet has a circumference of 40.000 km. Now let your thoughts run around the planet.
Well, my point was really that, nowadays, a launch by anyone would likely result in other launches, leading to all out war and global catastrophe. I wasn’t getting into the literal size of bomb impact areas vs global surface area.
Unlike your typical nice bar brawl, not everybody is actually that eager to get involved in an exchange of nukes, and alliances get sometimes weaker when the risks get higher.
I wasn’t getting into the literal size of bomb impact areas vs global surface area.
Of course you are free to build your opinion on whatever speculation you like the most.
Did you know that a good share of all American nukes are mounted on short range missiles that can travel only 100 km or so? Some people were considering funny scenarios there…
It depends on the systems of alliances and international commitments against a first strike. For instance, the Iran-Iraq War went on for several years and included the deployment of chemical weapons. I’m pretty sure that a nuclear exchange would be tolerated.
I suspect we’d only have it once.
I suggest to read about Hiroshima, and what really happened there, and afterwards.
Here’s a good book: Hibakusha: Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki https://a.co/d/8KS4RXC
One bomb kills people in a circle of 10 or 50 km (I forgot), and injures people maybe 100km around. Then it does damage to nature maybe even 1000 km around. I live 2000km from Chernobyl, and we had some warnings regarding vegetables for a year or so.
But the planet has a circumference of 40.000 km. Now let your thoughts run around the planet.
Well, my point was really that, nowadays, a launch by anyone would likely result in other launches, leading to all out war and global catastrophe. I wasn’t getting into the literal size of bomb impact areas vs global surface area.
Also, the bomb at Hiroshima was a relatively small one compared to what’s available now I believe.
I doubt it.
Unlike your typical nice bar brawl, not everybody is actually that eager to get involved in an exchange of nukes, and alliances get sometimes weaker when the risks get higher.
Of course you are free to build your opinion on whatever speculation you like the most.
Did you know that a good share of all American nukes are mounted on short range missiles that can travel only 100 km or so? Some people were considering funny scenarios there…
It depends on the systems of alliances and international commitments against a first strike. For instance, the Iran-Iraq War went on for several years and included the deployment of chemical weapons. I’m pretty sure that a nuclear exchange would be tolerated.