>>64175848
>>64176097
and you wanna know what'll happen when we can't get the fancy, proper shit to do our usual work? we'll just go to whatever's on hand.

i can't get a replacement turbine? well shit im gonna make way less power using this emergency produced pile of shit we made but it'll work. nobody'll care about pollution standards at that point anyways so we're going back to the 80's with internet maybe, but that's not the end of civilization as we know it. getting knocked back several technological rungs in our current society does not look like a return to the dark ages, it looks like a return to brick phones. this pesticide/fertilizer combo was banned for polluting the shit out of our water and killing birds? fuck birds, i want corn.

the thing people don't ever fucking get about nuclear planning is that long ago we figured out that 1 nuke is never enough if you actually want to kill your target. if you want to hit every port thoroughly enough to fuck it beyond repair? you're talking more like five, ten even, just to be sure. that's the whole reason MIRVs were made. add to this that most nukes in modern arsenals are around 200kt, you're just not able to hit the 'everyone dies' numbers anymore. russia has around 1800 warheads deployed, note that is WARHEADS. you're launching 3-10 on each missile at best and russia notably counts any missile that could in THEORY be put on a launcher and fired as 'deployed', even though in a nuclear exchange those would never make it to a launch platform in time. even if we take china's high-estimates of 600 warheads in their stock, you have to keep in mind, not all 2400 possible hostile nukes would be launched at just the US.

so if you know you need, being generous, three warheads to confirm a 'kill', what 800 global targets are you picking? US military bases? congratulations, there's just about one base per target you can pick. we're not even talking nuke silo targets at this point, that's 400 MORE targets in the US alone.