How destructive would be a World War 3?

How destructive would be a World War 3?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=GeLrKDAn1x8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_utilization_target_selection
twitter.com/AnonBabble

youtube.com/watch?v=GeLrKDAn1x8

>a war where the entire human race isn't completely destroyed
>not destructive enough

Not bad, everything gets slightly nuked but otherwise things will eventually sort themselves out.

Okay, I guess this is related to Korea. Well there will be no WWIII coming out of the Korea situation, seeing that China will unite with the US, S.Korea, Japan, and all the other regional peoples.

So any conflict with Korea will be a gangbang on N.Korea.

Using everything we got at hand? Enough to eliminate majority of mankind.

Northern hemisphere will most likely be anhilated whilst the southern one will most likely survive and thrive

consider fallout 1 2 & 3 are optimistic fantasies

someone somewhere would survive the nuclear winter(turns out it would realy be more of a autum but more devastating than before thought) and it seems populations kind of epigeneticaly get over the random mutation shit if they get the chance to actualy live and reproduce for a couple generations, given heavy isotopes dont get acumulated in fertile females to the point they stat giving birth to clumps of meat, but it would be beyond grimdark and it would realy clean the place up

Unlikely. Tens of millions in the blasts, and tens of millions more in the aftermath due to disease, breakdown of society, lack of access to necessities and violent disorder.

This is a board for events that have already happed idiot

>WWIII will automatically use nooks.
doubt.jpg.

In WWII, they all refrained from using Gas weapons.

t. Sean Spicer

Nope. Japan used gas vs. the Chinese in WWII. They only stopped because having missed out on much of WWI, Japanese gas weapons were 30 years outdated. They used fucking canisters and the wind to push gas clouds to the enemy, instead of shells or bombs.

As a result, the Japanese gassed loads of their own troops as well as the Chinese. And so they stopped.

I was listening to a program recently featuring a former Indian nuclear weapons scientist, who said that most weapons labs are focused on producing and converting most warheads for low-yield, high-penetration attacks on military and hardened infrastructure targets, rather than the old M.A.D. "you kill all my people, I'll kill all of yours". So a full nuclear exchange probably wouldn't mean extinction, but still would inundate most of the world with varying levels of fallout, and probably knock out central power and information grids. It would be p bad

That's an underestimation at best. Considering urbanization of USA is 80%, it would leave us with 150-200M deaths for US alone.

Question is how effectivelly would the weapons be used.

>Question is how effectivelly would the weapons be used.
Another decent question is how many of the warheads actually work properly. Most nuclear-armed countries are signatory to test bans, so in theory, we don't even know if our nukes work. I think the funniest timeline is where a warhead smacks into Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, and nothing happens.

MAD is old and busted, NUTS is the new hotness
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_utilization_target_selection

>slightly nuked

You're assuming all the nukes are going to fired at population centers when warheads are limited in what they can reach and it doesn't make much strategic sense to waste warheads on places like Chattanooga TN or El Paso Texas (technically urban) or the dozens of other middle & small sized cities where more people live than in all the metropolitan areas put together when there's important harbors, railroad junctures, military bases, missile silos that are more important targets. You also seem to think that every nuclear missiles have a 100% mortality rate on the cities they hit when that's not true either.

This 150-200M figure you pulled out is utterly bogus, based on absolutely nothing but your own feelings.

The movie Threads is pretty accurate

A two or three way full scale nuclear war, may not kill everyone, but it will lead to the collapse of nearly every developed nation, and the interconnectedness of the global economy would in turn cause every nation to economically collapse.

Some nations are better set up to come back from this than others. Oddly, one of the best set up for this sort of disaster would be the United States, but it'd also be among the hardest hit.

So, WW3 itself would be pretty destructive... But the WW4 that would result would be next to never ending, as all the remaining nations, desperate to stabilize their economies, will start warring with each other. The power vacuum will probably be more destructive than the nukes themselves, many times over - and probably involve yet more nukes.

The end result will likely be a rise of the developing world to power, and an international consolidation unlike any the world has ever seen before.

So yeah, it'll suck. Might not quite be the end of the world, but it will almost certainly be the end of the western civilization. (Unless it is something considerably less than full scale, which is probably more likely.)

>Unless it is something considerably less than full scale, which is probably more likely.
Yeah, but the problem with having NUTS instead of MAD, is that pretty soon after everyone puts war with nuclear armed factions back on the table as a viable option, pretty much every conflict is going to involve a nuclear exchange.

Right now, the only things maintaining the peace is a combination of the overwhelming US military advantage, countered by the threat of a nuclear exchange. If nuclear exchange ceases to be a peacemaker, we're probably going to go back to the days when the time between world wars is measured in mere decades.

WW3 might not be so bad... But it'll be promptly followed by WW4-WW10, and so on, as suddenly, world war no longer seems an unthinkable option.