John F...

but merkel just nuked us

...

The question wasn't would it happen but how would the world look now if it did happen those many years ago.

They certainly would if they were given the choice of hitting first or being hit.

this is why you are stupid

You don't understand the fundamental principle of a deterrent

This.

Also this.
Anyone launches any kind of attack like that now and they will be erased from the Earth.

>Early reports considered direct effects from nuclear blast and radiation and indirect effects from economic, social, and political disruption. In a 1979 report for the U.S. Senate, the Office of Technology Assessment estimated casualties under different scenarios. For a full-scale countervalue/counterforce nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, they predicted U.S. deaths from 35 to 77 percent (70 million to 160 million dead at the time), and Soviet deaths from 20 to 40 percent of the population.[28]
>Although this report was made when nuclear stockpiles were at much higher levels than they are today, it also was made before the risk of nuclear winter was discovered in the early 1980s. Additionally, it did not consider other secondary effects, such electromagnetic pulses (EMP), and the ramifications they would have on modern technology and industry.

Id trust the pakis to be retarded enough.

A video game is not a good thing to base your thinking on.

Secondly, that's highly dependent on who is involved in doing the shooting. It is also quite possible to use nuclear weapons at the tactical ort heater level without it escalating to the strategic level.

It's very hard to say. There would be a dinosaur extinction tier global nuclear winter which would destroy almost all life on Earth. Maybe a few hundred thousand humans would survive worldwide. Maybe they would be able to start farming again but most of them would become hunter gatherer societies.

>More recent studies make use of modern global circulation models and far greater computer power than was available for the 1980s studies. A 2007 study examined consequences of a global nuclear war involving moderate to large portions of the current global arsenal.[31] The study found cooling by about 12–20 °C in much of the core farming regions of the US, Europe, Russia and China and as much as 35 °C in parts of Russia for the first two summer growing seasons. The changes they found were also much longer lasting than previously thought, because their new model better represented entry of soot aerosols in the upper stratosphere, where precipitation does not occur, and therefore clearance was on the order of 10 years.[23] In addition, they found that global cooling caused a weakening of the global hydrological cycle, reducing global precipitation by about 45%.
>The authors did not discuss the implications for agriculture in depth, but noted that a 1986 study which assumed no food production for a year projected that "most of the people on the planet would run out of food and starve to death by then" and commented that their own results show that, "This period of no food production needs to be extended by many years, making the impacts of nuclear winter even worse than previously thought."[31]

This is why sandniggers should be eradicated

They are stupid enough

>tfw people in first world metropoli would've been comfortably vaporized while everyone else dies to poisoning and cold

Do you have more about htis ?

>It is difficult to estimate the number of casualties that would result from nuclear winter, but it is likely that the primary effect would be global famine (known as Nuclear Famine), wherein mass starvation occurs due to disrupted agricultural production and distribution.[32] In a 2013 report, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) concluded that more than two billion people, about a third of the world's population, would be at risk of starvation in the event of a regional nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, or by the use of even a small proportion of nuclear arms held by US and Russia.[6][33] Several independent studies show corroborated conclusions that agricultural outputs will be significantly reduced for years by climatic changes driven by nuclear wars. Reduction of food supply will be further exacerbated by rising food prices, affecting hundreds of millions of vulnerable people, especially in the poorest nations of the world.

I recomend watching this youtube.com/watch?v=WCTKcd2Ko98

And also the movies "Threads" and "The Day After"

*or the theater level

Nuclear winter is a myth. It not based on science.

Nice source.

Thanks, i'll check this out when i have more time

I can source dump if you so wish, but all "nuclear winter" studies start with the same incorrect assumptions.

incorrect data in = incorrect results

How can you be so sure the assumptions you speak of are incorrect ?

Well, first off you can't disprove a negative. They are the ones that need to prove their assumptions are the correct ones, however:

Because nuclear strategy doesn't work the way that climate scientists thinks it works.

bump

thanks for the source dipshit

>I am smarter than all of those scientists, trust me guys, I know what I am saying, the scientists don't

You didn't ask for a source.

But an easy summery without having to reading piles of books:

nytimes.com/video/us/100000004306826/nuclear-winter.html

Not an argument. Scientists are not nuclear strategists, but sure, please provide a study that address these assumptions.

>no world leader is stupid enough to actually launch a nuke

>Russia has placed its nuclear arsenal at the center of its strategic approach to this kind of confrontation. According to Western experts, its recent military exercises have relied heavily on what it calls a single “de-escalatory nuclear strike”.

>It’s a very simple – but possibly phenomenally dangerous – concept. The theory is that if Russian forces are engaged with an enemy like NATO, once they have won the conventional battle they would launch a single nuclear strike with the aim of intimidating the West into standing down and accepting the results.

>In major exercises in 2013 that simulated an invasion of one or more of the Baltic states, the scenario appeared to end with a nuclear strike on Warsaw, NATO officials say. More recently – perhaps worrying that such an approach might make a NATO nuclear response inevitable – Russian exercises have tended to target a single purely military target, for example a NATO flotilla of warships.

reuters.com/article/us-europe-war-commentary-idUSKCN0ZL2FM

Still there are retards who think russians are not evil enough to use nuclear weapons.

>on warsaw

On a rocketbase/military target id understand, but fuck this evil shit, if thats not propaganda then theyre an enemy and the sanctions are justified.

lmao and you believe that

t. mikhail molotov

>Not an argument

There's zero reason not to believe it though. Russians are evil motherfuckers who will use all tricks up their sleeve to win wars and don't give a flying shit about civilian causalities, especially not polish ones.

We are live in a different timeline.

>there's a parallel universe out there where you are god-king of a post-nuclear holocaust society and have your pick of the women

but the same goes for china, usa, germany and japan and few more - judging from history. what makes you think that they'll be the one to start it?

no one is THAT insane to drop a nuke, there's too much risk and literally nothing in gain.

i used to be paranoid about attacks and stuff, but nothing happens for no reason

Recommend more nuke movies please. Threads was nice and comfy to watch. The world seemed bleary afterwards.

>Threads
>Comfy

I dunno why but I find dark, dreary movies like that or The Road comfy. Please don't post pics of downies to imply that I am one, it is rather hurtful.

>what makes you think that they'll be the one to start it?
Contemporary russia is a sham run by the kgb who took over after the old soviet order collapsed and who managed to fake being a western democracy long enough to root themselves so deep that trying to fix the corruption would make the entire house of cards fall in on itself. This means it's a country literally run by professional thugs who have been trained to get the job done no matter the consequences. They don't even try to pretend they care about civilian casualties, unlike all the countries you mentioned.

And try to at least understand the basic concept of what you are getting upset about and arguing against. The "de-escalatory" nuclear strike is preceded by a conventional armed conflict with NATO forces and the goal of the strike is the same as it was in hiroshima and nagasaki. Force the enemy to stand down from the sheer terror of global nuclear exchange because unlike the criminals at kremlin most nations are run by people who are not ready to play hardball, as has been clearly and painfully showcased in ukraine and syria. When pressed against the wall americans and EU will stand down because the leaders are a bunch of pussies. A single nuclear strike is a brilliant way to end a war since everyone will bend over backwards to avoid a global nuclear war. Or are you really dumb enough to think americans will drop their entire nuclear load on russia if they drop a single nuke on warsaw or a nato flotilla? Is avenging 1.7 million polish lives worth sacrificing the entire world to oblivion?

Of course it fucking isn't and the russians know this.

>Is avenging 1.7 million polish lives worth sacrificing the entire world to oblivion?
yes

>no one is THAT insane to drop a nuke, there's too much risk and literally nothing in gain.

This all depends on each nuclear nation, some have a 'no first use' policy, others maintain the policies that allow for pre-emptive strikes.

Those nuclear nations would only attack if the risks of attacking outway the risks of not attacking.

*outweigh

If they think they could nuke a city and just pretend nothing happend well.. It wouldn't work.
Japan was already exhausted and couldn't even respond, but nowadays if you nuke someone, you get nuked because it's easy to just press a button

Thank you, making smart posts from my phone is hard.

We believe

>If they think they could nuke a city and just pretend nothing happend well.. It wouldn't work.

This is your opinion vs the collective assessment by strategists and policy advisors. I would defer my opinion to the actual experts.

This is a very shitty shoop, look closely at the yellow.

why is the flag patch over the seam

> If the nuclear missiles had remained, we would have used them against the very heart of America, including New York City…We will march the path of victory even if it costs millions of atomic victims…We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm, -che

bump for this I've already added The Day After

>During the early 1980s, Fidel Castro recommended to the Kremlin a harder line against Washington, even suggesting the possibility of nuclear strikes. The pressure stopped after Soviet officials gave Castro a briefing on the ecological effect on Cuba of nuclear strikes on the United States.[175] In 2010 Alan Robock, a co-author of nuclear winter papers was summoned to Cuba to help Castro promote his new view that nuclear war would bring about Armageddon, Robock's 90 minute lecture was later aired on nationwide television in the country.[176]

you stupid whore

I think the USSR would have been reduced to ash more than us because in 1962, we had them ringed on three sides with nuclear bombers while they had a quite limited ability to strike the US. The 1980s was a different story of course; a war at that point would have meant the end of civilization as we know it.

bump

"Che Guevara had a major falling out with the Castro brothers over his strongly pro-Chinese stance. In 1963, Mao Zedong criticized Cuba's sugar-centered economy, calling it 'a rudiment of colonialism' and suggested that Cuba should focus more on food production. However, Fidel Castro had no interest in changing something that wasn't broken, and in regards to the Sino-Soviet split, preferred Moscow due to the superior technical and military aid they could offer."

who was right?

"During this period, both Moscow and Beijing attempted to flood Cuba with propaganda literature, although the Chinese material came in greater quantities and was far more vocal. When the Cultural Revolution began in 1966, most of the communist world was appalled and Cuba was no exception. Fidel Castro suggested that the 73 year old Mao had gone senile and vowed that Cuba would never be led by anyone over 60. Cuba during this time moved to block all imports of Chinese propaganda materials."

>and vowed that Cuba would never be led by anyone over 60.
How old was he when he handed control over to his bro?

The only thing I'd nuke is your mom's vagina.

He didn't follow his own words.

Don't be rude.

we all would have superpowers.

women survivors from the fallout would probably be grotesque mutants