>>511079957Depends on the scale of it, but I think we'd have relative "normalcy" within 20 years of it happening.
There would be hundreds of millions to billions dead, but a lot of radioactive contamination would actually be concentrated to small areas - heavy radioactive elements don't travel far, and most of the dangerous elements decay quickly. It's only salted bombs built with the intention of causing contamination that will be a real issue.
Most deaths are going to be from a breakdown in transportation, manufacturing, and agriculture rather than directly from the explosions or the radiation - and those breakdowns could be well mitigated with good organization.
A real nuclear war scenario could also run for weeks - not just one day everything is launched, but one day a few are launched at easy military targets in one area, then negotiations, then a sub launches nukes at some manufacturing or civilian hubs in another area, then negotiations, then a stealth bomber strike hits some political or economic targets somewhere, then negotiations, etc. etc. imagine that but for weeks, with the scale of the nuclear annihilation ramping up.
Remember, the first side to run out of nukes is the side that loses, so there's a strong incentive NOT to play your entire hand straight away.
It's far more likely nuclear war is back and forth like that rather than one night everyone dies.
Additionally, if say NATO and Russia got into a war like that, you can bet your fucking ass every shitskin in our countries would self deport immediately. It might unironically be the fastest and best way to rid ourselves of them - not only are they mostly concentrated in the big cities that are most likely to get nuked and so will die in large numbers first, but they hold no loyalty to our nations and will flee the very moment a war like that threatens their lives.
