🫸🫷

  • DankOfAmerica@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    If Russia or the US launch nuclear weapons, over 90% of the world population will die over the following 10 years. However, global warming would be solved.

    • tal
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      https://www.navalgazing.net/Nuclear-Winter

      Even using the most conservative numbers here, an all-out exchange between the US and Russia would produce a nuclear winter that would at most resemble the one that Robock and Toon predict for a regional nuclear conflict, although it would likely end much sooner given empirical data about stratospheric soot lifetimes. Some of the errors are long-running, most notably assumptions about the amount of soot that will persist in the atmosphere, while others seem to have crept in more recently, contributing to a strange stability of their soot estimates in the face of cuts to the nuclear arsenal. All of this suggests that their work is driven more by an anti-nuclear agenda than the highest standards of science. While a large nuclear war would undoubtedly have some climatic impact, all available data suggests it would be dwarfed by the direct (and very bad) impacts of the nuclear war itself.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        90% of people being dead and the other 10% being pre-industrial is what’ll fix global warming, we don’t need nuclear winter for that.

        • tal
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          The direct effects on the world of a nuclear war between the US and Russia isn’t going to include killing 90% of the world’s population.