I have. Read my post...
;)
I believe that, even in the event of a FULL nuclear exchange, the Southern hemisphere is considered much safer in the aftermath - something to do with air currents, I think.
Humanity will, most certainly, NOT be wiped out.
Russia however, is ridiculously disadvantaged - they're 1 aggressor against several other nuclear powers - it's "assured destruction" alright, but not so mutual perhaps.
300k people is just the headline number for propaganda purposes. The actual number of people who end up in Ukraine is going to be lower. The number of people who actually get deployed to the front line will be lower again. Let's say 200k people actually end up in Ukraine, of those half of those will be logistic/support folks, so you're really looking at arming "only" the other half. Of that 100k, it could be the case that 50k are assigned to police/guard duty, or placed on reserve lines of defence, just assign them a Kalashnikov and a grenade.
'It's the heat that kills you' are you quoting from that nonsense Quora post someone linked to a while back downplaying nuclear weapons?
With a nuclear detonation, you've a combination of the massive blast, the heat and then gamma radiation, along with a massive burst of EMP.
If that doesn't kill you either by being vapourised, crushed in buildings or via an incredibly high dose of radiation, it'll get you in the subsequent days by poisoning you and your land with radioactive fallout.
It's not just 'the heat that kills you'.
I agree with the rest of your post re MAD and the highly unlikely situation where one would be used, but please, don't downplay the effects of an actual nuclear attack. It's grossly misinformed.
No I'm not. Ukraine isn't in NATO, Im not sure the west would retaliate, Russia would be cut off from the world but I don't think the US/France & UK would risk their population for Ukraine. Ukraine isn't in any military alliance with the west.
Go back a few pages here in this forum, and several knowledgeable posters gave their views on what happens when nuclear bombs are exploded, and point out that to date, and until such tests were banned by treaty's, several hundred, if not thousands have taken place already. Yet the world still turns, and Life as we know it goes on.
He didn't really downplay it, he used the phrase "not world-ending", and he's correct.
Will he get overthrown do you think?
we know that a lot of these announcements are for the general population sheep of Russia and to keep them bleating in harmony but for those in the upper echelons who will probably see this as desperation and a totally inappropriate form of action and also as preventing them from enjoying their I’ll gotten gains like their $500m boats , is there any chance of overthrow from the inside? A lot of media appear to rule this out
How long is a piece of string, one nuclear detonation isn't world ending, either are two or three - it's the resulting escalation to a global conflict where there are thousands of devices being detonated over all of our major cities that would be world ending.
We thought the same thing back during the cold war, it's not new thinking. Thankfully it's the thing which has resulted in no nuclear arms being used in anger since the second world war.
Just because they have been used in tests and the world didn't end means nothing! 'knowledge posters' give me a break, what are they, Irelands leading nuclear war specialists?
Besides the immediate destruction of cities by nuclear blasts, the potential aftermath of a nuclear war could involve firestorms, a nuclear winter, widespread radiation sickness from fallout, and/or the temporary (if not permanent) loss of much modern technology due to electromagnetic pulses
https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2022/03/what-the-science-says-could-humans-survive-a-nuclear-war-between-nato-and-russia/
vast majority of the human population would suffer extremely unpleasant deaths from burns, radiation and starvation, and human civilization would likely collapse entirely. Survivors would eke out a living on a devastated, barren planet.
One guy posted a nonsense Quora article and people jumped on board with some wishful thinking, that was it really.
All of those thousands of tests were exploded in uninhabited areas. During nuclear war, they're detonated over cities. Hardly the same thing.
How would the destruction of many major cities equate to "World-ending"?
Do you mean "sophisticated society" ending, as opposed to planet ending?
It'd be quite tricky to get out East, undetected, though because Russian transportation is heavily centralised. The vast majority of people making that trip either fly or take the railway. Both of those would be easy to check. The only other option is by road - there aren't a lot of roads running west to east so they will likely be covered in check points.
You have radiation, starvation, collapse. The lucky ones die first
But many European States gave the Ukrainans written security guarantees recently.....
Ah well
Let's say 200k
They will struggle getting 20k let alone 300,000 or 200,000 rainbows unicorns being dreamt about there
I'd also add, I'd say plenty of those reservists are already there. This just legalises and forces them to remain.
This is starting to boil down to semantics now.
What is your definition of 'world ending'?
He also wears high heels 👠
So, how many in Australia will be affected if the 50 largest cities in Russia are destroyed by Nuclear Missiles ?
Have you a link for this? I can only find
Ukraine pushes for security guarantees
Are any of the signatories Nuclear powers?
Another day another accident in Moscow
The Duma has announced a travel ban for mobilized citizens.
Not at all, the doctors are busy in Russia today writing up reasons their patients can't go, a war the Russian people don't want, be lucky if 30k soldiers actually get boots on the ground in Ukraine for one reason or another.
Out of curiosity, what do you think the West should do?
Precisely
"World" can mean "totality of experience", "home", "immediate environment" or "planet"
In this context, my interpretation is "life sustaining planet"
Just wondering, what happened all the nuclear radiation that was generated by all these hundreds of atomic bombs that were detonated, underground, under water and on uninhabited islands etc. It's the radiation that's the killer right??? ( away from the blast centre ) You have mass destruction conventional bombs available now that can penetrate mountains, like the ones they used in the Afghan Mountains to flush out Bin Laden etc, and I'm pretty sure that these bombs from 20+ years ago are even more powerful now if used on a city. But to repeat, what happened all the radiation from all the previous atomic bombs that were exploded? Should the whole world not have been contaminated already?
Yes several nuclear powers ....
I see flights from Moscow to turkey suddenly booked out yesterday
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c33618a99b1d02afaf5370e8c02bf147.svg)
