We will not die, to the question of the threat of a nuclear apocalypse
Inspired by the post Counting the number of atomic bombs required for the complete destruction of humanity. Something is wrong here!?! because the answer is too large and unwrapped, I decided to make it a post, not a comment in the topic.
1. Investigate the abstract situation, if all these bombs are successfully delivered (one of the main problems of their application) to their places and relatively simultaneously used - to put it mildly, it makes no sense.
Firstly, ALL the bombs will not be delivered, this is for sure, the countries (not all but the main ones), which are in the 'nuclear club', quite successfully (postponing the effectiveness issues) created (and actively upgrade) anti-missile defense systems, which will manage to destroy quite a lot (in theory EVERYTHING that has a potential enemy) the number of these bombs.
Secondly, by no means all of these bombs are equipped with a working delivery and service system, they lie in warehouses with a theoretical deadline of 'introduction into battle' and also seem to lie there in the X hour and remain there, as a result of the destruction of some of the attendants and bases ( information about a considerable part of which is clearly available to participants).
Thirdly, there is such a thing as the human factor, well, I don’t believe that all 'nuclear' countries conscientiously and effectively prepare service personnel for weapons of mass destruction, which without any reasoning and prejudice will quietly observe and create a world-wide apocalypse. Also, the launch control system is not a button with an instant start, after which it remains only to 'tear the hair on the head'. Thousands of ways to complicate the launch (bureaucratic, organizational, technical) and even more to cancel the already running charge. All this also significantly reduces the amount of 'useful explosions'.
2. It is impossible to randomly (leave the questions of fear of the accidental creation of a self-sustaining reaction when studying and experimenting, like, for example, in scary stories about the LHC behind the scenes, since offtopic) arrange a worldwide and fatal apocalypse. Too complicated this thing :). To harm yes, it is possible to destroy, certainly not. To use ONLY nuclear weapons for this is generally nonsense, there are much more effective means, for example, chemical warfare agents (in Russia, for example, such a quantity is stored that would be enough for multiple poisoning of the entire planet) or biological weapons, the latter, in theory, is generally the most effective to create an apocalypse, after which there will be no chance of a single survivor (a man, all animals are still harder to destroy, the same insects have a very good 'survival reserve').
')
3. Well, I'll drop a fly in the ointment, on the topic of survival of people after the apocalypse. An interesting discussion was found on forum.ixbt.com - The sudden disappearance of 99.99999% of people on Earth , where much more greenhouse conditions for the disappearance of most of the world's population, the survival of survivors and the preservation of cultural, scientific and technological potential are discussed.
1. Investigate the abstract situation, if all these bombs are successfully delivered (one of the main problems of their application) to their places and relatively simultaneously used - to put it mildly, it makes no sense.
Firstly, ALL the bombs will not be delivered, this is for sure, the countries (not all but the main ones), which are in the 'nuclear club', quite successfully (postponing the effectiveness issues) created (and actively upgrade) anti-missile defense systems, which will manage to destroy quite a lot (in theory EVERYTHING that has a potential enemy) the number of these bombs.
Secondly, by no means all of these bombs are equipped with a working delivery and service system, they lie in warehouses with a theoretical deadline of 'introduction into battle' and also seem to lie there in the X hour and remain there, as a result of the destruction of some of the attendants and bases ( information about a considerable part of which is clearly available to participants).
Thirdly, there is such a thing as the human factor, well, I don’t believe that all 'nuclear' countries conscientiously and effectively prepare service personnel for weapons of mass destruction, which without any reasoning and prejudice will quietly observe and create a world-wide apocalypse. Also, the launch control system is not a button with an instant start, after which it remains only to 'tear the hair on the head'. Thousands of ways to complicate the launch (bureaucratic, organizational, technical) and even more to cancel the already running charge. All this also significantly reduces the amount of 'useful explosions'.
2. It is impossible to randomly (leave the questions of fear of the accidental creation of a self-sustaining reaction when studying and experimenting, like, for example, in scary stories about the LHC behind the scenes, since offtopic) arrange a worldwide and fatal apocalypse. Too complicated this thing :). To harm yes, it is possible to destroy, certainly not. To use ONLY nuclear weapons for this is generally nonsense, there are much more effective means, for example, chemical warfare agents (in Russia, for example, such a quantity is stored that would be enough for multiple poisoning of the entire planet) or biological weapons, the latter, in theory, is generally the most effective to create an apocalypse, after which there will be no chance of a single survivor (a man, all animals are still harder to destroy, the same insects have a very good 'survival reserve').
')
3. Well, I'll drop a fly in the ointment, on the topic of survival of people after the apocalypse. An interesting discussion was found on forum.ixbt.com - The sudden disappearance of 99.99999% of people on Earth , where much more greenhouse conditions for the disappearance of most of the world's population, the survival of survivors and the preservation of cultural, scientific and technological potential are discussed.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/66798/
All Articles