-27
top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Tinfoil hat on

I have a feeling that we're gonna see the first use of a WMD by Russia against the US in the next 4 years. Perhaps not a full out nuke, but something like a thermobaric weapon used against a Democratic city like NYC.

My theory is that this will be secretly coordinated between Trump and Putin months in advance. It serves as a show of force for Russia, while at the same time conveniently feeds into Trump's desire for retribution. Russia will say that it's revenge for helping Ukraine. Trump will spout some BS about not wanting to escalate to save face. Big events like that also tend to benefit the current president in office. The facts will come out months or years after it happens.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

I like how this is somehow not political but yet it apparently is just enough to get people to crawl out of the wood work with a emotional response.

People are getting fired up over something that is a random thought. Its up there with right leaning people failing a 5th grade math exam because the researchers made the answers contradict the core conservative beliefs. Political beliefs are not rational and but many people are unaware of there own irrational logic.

[-] sxan@midwest.social 4 points 9 hours ago

All of the silos are in rural areas; those are mostly known and definitely first-strike targets. Cities need very few nukes to take out individually. Nowhere will anyone be rebuilding from the ashes. If the war is limited and nuclear winter doesn't make the entire planet uninhabitable, the only places with a chance of surviving are the undeveloped countries. No developed country will be habitable.

Nuclear fallout is a bitch.

[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Dang, I was thinking west coast might be OK because of the winds.

[-] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 37 points 16 hours ago

False. Nuclear war kills most of the population on the planet, whether from a direct hit, fallout, food and water being contaminated, or the breakdown of society that comes after.

Those who get killed by the direct hit will be considered lucky by the people unlucky enough to survive it.

[-] Cryan24@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Australia, New Zealand, Ireland (possibly) and some South American countries would be ok.

[-] CameronDev@programming.dev 9 points 15 hours ago

Unless they decided to nuke all the arable land instead, lower upfront deaths, but the long term famine will get everyone.

Realistically, nuclear war is the end of everyone, its called MAD for a reason.

[-] BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago
[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Thanks, didn't see that one. I'll check it out tonight.

[-] corvi@lemm.ee 8 points 16 hours ago

All-out nuclear war would kill every human on the planet.

[-] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago

I think that’s an exaggeration, but the population would drop dramatically and only small self sustaining nations far from the conflict would survive. But it’s 2024 and most of the world is interdependent on each other for trade of essential goods…

[-] movies@lemmy.world 13 points 15 hours ago

Nuclear war would be absolutely apocalyptic. Lookup the US policy on “Launch on Warning” and “Hair-trigger alert”. Russia has the same thing and China by this point probably does, too. If the US were targeted those doctrines would come into effect and we’d go into “escalate to de-escalate” mode. And that’d make it worse.

There would be multiple thousands of warheads launched around the globe. EMPs would be detonated in the atmosphere, continent-wide power grids would fail. A single Ohio-class nuclear submarine has more destructive power than every bomb, including the two nukes, dropped in WWII — and they’d light the place up. And then you have all the various contamination in the air, soil, and water that would be cycled through the ecosystem for hundreds and thousands of years.

Pockets of people would live, certainly, but it’d be awful. Like Khrushchev said, “the survivors will envy the dead.”

[-] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago

Yeah, once one nuke starts flying they’re all going to start flying. Maybe some small island communities in the South Pacific would survive but they’ll probably wish they didn’t…

You brought up US China and Russia, but don’t forget how many others have nukes. India and Pakistan would go at it too… France has nukes as well right? I can’t remember if the UK, Germany and Norway do…

It would be an absolute shit show. It’s downright frightening that some members of society think that “only the democrat cities will get hit!” In the shower no less… are the trump voters being primed to accept a nuclear war because they don’t think they will suffer? Scary shit.

[-] remon@ani.social 0 points 15 hours ago
[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Yup, even killing 99% of the population leaves 8,00,000 people, and many of them won't develop cancer fast enough to keep the population from continuing.

[-] Sergio@slrpnk.net 3 points 13 hours ago

Take a look at the movie "Threads" about the effects of a nuclear war. It's from back in the cold war, but a lot of it remains relevant:

[-] Zahille7@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

You're so fucking stupid I don't even have an insult or something clever to say, other than remove yourself from the gene pool.

[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago
[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Don't take it to much to heart. My guess is that the election results are upsetting people which means they get mad as a defense.

[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

It did involve politics but only because cities are densely populated and usually vote blue. Rural red is not a target for mass casualties.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago

I get your logic. It is a little flawed but at the end of the day it is probably not worth putting thought into it.

It is a shower thought

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

How dare they have a shower thought!

Seriously though shower thoughts don't need to be rational and they especially aren't well researched. Calling for someone to take there own life is very much not ok. We already have a mental health crisis and people are taking there own lives at a alarming rate.

[-] PrincessKadath@ani.social 3 points 16 hours ago

So, the Handmaiden's Tale?

[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

Where I live will never be a bomb target. So, I'll still be here. But you're right. I'm VERY outnumbered.

[-] BonerMan@ani.social 1 points 14 hours ago

Nah the rural areas would die longer and more painful deaths.

[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Perhaps. I was thinking that if countries are going after casualties, the would simply fire at large cities. Those who live on a farm in the middle of nowhere, would mostly just have to worry about the winds blowing the fallout towards them.

this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
-27 points (30.4% liked)

Showerthoughts

29522 readers
1187 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    1. NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    2. Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    3. Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS