Search Results
6/20/2025, 1:30:15 PM
>>508073230
This 100%.
>>508073093
Tbf though there is some truth to the claim that the power of nuclear weapons is over-exagerated. The US, Russia and China do not have the power to nuke the entire world several times over.
a) Nukes aren't as powerful as the propaganda makes it appear. The classic video of a house being blown away by a nuke? It's made of wood. Most of the buildings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were made of wood too. Many buildings actually survived in Hiroshima despite being only hundreds of meters away from ground zero: because they were made of brick (e.g. Genbaku Dome). There's even a case of a centurion tank surviving an atomic bomb from only 450m away from a nuclear bomb detonation. Most modern buildings are far more durable than the wooden houses like pic related or in Hiroshima.
b) There aren't enough warheads for how many targets there are. In the entire world, there are a less than ten thousand nuclear warheads. In a nuclear war, many of these would be intercepted or malfunction before they hit their target. So in total if there were a nuclear war, there would probably be a thousand or so nuclear bombs go off across the world. This may sound like a lot, but the world is really big. There are 346 cities in the USA with a population over 100,000 alone. And that's before even considering how many military/infrastructure targets there are. And as mentioned previously, nukes aren't actually that powerful. Unless each city is bombed multiple times, you would probably survive in a city that got nuked.
Now obviously a nuclear war would be extremely bad. But it wouldn't instantly cause a global apocalypse, Fallout-style. The overwhelming majority of people would survive it. For most countries, life would probably be relatively unchaged.
This 100%.
>>508073093
Tbf though there is some truth to the claim that the power of nuclear weapons is over-exagerated. The US, Russia and China do not have the power to nuke the entire world several times over.
a) Nukes aren't as powerful as the propaganda makes it appear. The classic video of a house being blown away by a nuke? It's made of wood. Most of the buildings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were made of wood too. Many buildings actually survived in Hiroshima despite being only hundreds of meters away from ground zero: because they were made of brick (e.g. Genbaku Dome). There's even a case of a centurion tank surviving an atomic bomb from only 450m away from a nuclear bomb detonation. Most modern buildings are far more durable than the wooden houses like pic related or in Hiroshima.
b) There aren't enough warheads for how many targets there are. In the entire world, there are a less than ten thousand nuclear warheads. In a nuclear war, many of these would be intercepted or malfunction before they hit their target. So in total if there were a nuclear war, there would probably be a thousand or so nuclear bombs go off across the world. This may sound like a lot, but the world is really big. There are 346 cities in the USA with a population over 100,000 alone. And that's before even considering how many military/infrastructure targets there are. And as mentioned previously, nukes aren't actually that powerful. Unless each city is bombed multiple times, you would probably survive in a city that got nuked.
Now obviously a nuclear war would be extremely bad. But it wouldn't instantly cause a global apocalypse, Fallout-style. The overwhelming majority of people would survive it. For most countries, life would probably be relatively unchaged.
Page 1