- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- usa@midwest.social
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- usa@midwest.social
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31683994
Fox News reports that Donald Trump may consider using nuclear weapons to eliminate Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility
The U.S. military has reservations regarding the success of using a bunker-buster bomb, a non nuclear weapon, to eliminate Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility, buried deep in a mountain. Two defense officials were reportedly briefed that only a tactical nuclear weapon could reach the facility.
Not to say that nuclear war isn’t bad, but we literally don’t have enough bombs available to do that.
I just very much believe that a chain reaction after a nuclear war will kill everything alive on it. Almost certainly all humans would be gone pretty soon.
You can believe it all you want, the numbers just aren’t there. There are only ~3800 nuclear warheads that are ready for launch, across all countries that possess them. That’s not enough to put a permanent dent in the human population even if you launched all of them targeted to inflict maximum casualties. Which isn’t how they’d be launched, of course - most of them would be aimed at military targets, such as ICBM silos and airstrips that are out in the middle of nowhere.
I expect you’ll propose nuclear winter as the actual killing effect. Nuclear winter has been drastically overblown, often for this very reason - to scare people into an anti-proliferation stance. We know a lot more now than we did when the first wild predictions were made.
Again, not to say that nuclear war isn’t bad. But if one is to make good decisions one should strive for realistic understanding of the world. It wouldn’t literally cause human extinction.
What’s your point and why do you think it matters in this context?
I’m responding to someone who said:
That’s the context.
My point is that this is not true, and I’m explaining why it’s not true.
offf. Ok. Thanks for all the perfectly factual and proven references, or ahhh…on-going debates, you gave.
Does any of it consider the wars that will be triggered? How the water supply will be affected? How the weather is going to be affected after an already fucked up atmosphere absorbs this damage? I could go on but this is pointless with a person like you.
Did you consider any of it? In an actually analytical way, that is, instead of just imagining the outcome you wanted?
I provided links, you provided nothing but belief and fearmongering. And downvotes, of course, which also prove nothing.
Nukes get dropped, war will break out. This will result in large chunks of the world being killed.
Humanity will not be the same after.
It wasn’t the last two fucking times we did it, and there’s only more people now to get even more fucked up and have an even more extreme reaction to such instability.
None of which comes close to rendering humanity extinct. That’s been my point all along. Nuclear war would suck, but it would not render humanity extinct.