A nuclear war wouldn’t eliminate all governments involved, so in some sense they are “winnable.” The best way to frame MAD is not that all nations involved are destroyed, but rather that a Malthusian trap is simultaneously triggered for all nations. Nuclear war destroys the global economy, without which we all no longer can specialize but must become generalist subsistence farmers. In this scenario many people die in a few weeks and most people die in a few years, but still some billions eke out a meager existence based on their geographical location and the difficulty of transitioning to a subsistence economy.<p>It should be noted that the author is not a military theorist, and that he assumes there is no ladder of escalation, most targets are countervalue, and that most strikes are groundbursts. There are also reasonable arguments[0] to be made that so-called “limited” nuclear war is the more likely outcome of nuclear engagement. The fact that not even this has been seen since 1945 suggests that even “limited” nuclear war is not in the interests of any nuclear powers today.<p>It must be emphasized that nuclear weapons are more of a political tool than a military one so long as the nuclear taboo holds. Countries whose international and domestic reputations depend on an appearance of indomitability may wish to emphasize their nuclear posture during times of military and political crisis. The purpose of which is at least partially to generate irrational discourse in foreign media.<p>In my opinion tensions were the highest when Biden made his “Armageddon” comment and have cooled substantially since then.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780804790918/html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780804790918...</a>
The most surprising bit of this for me was nuclear winter. I thought the idea fell out of favor, but they cite a recent Nature paper claiming up to 99% of the population of the global North would starve.<p>Do any governments stockpile food? Afaict, the US doesn't keep emergency stocks of non-perishables. Though according to the paper it would take ~8 years for food production to pick back up substantially, so that might just be too long.
Many people believe that the film "Threads" from 1984 is one of the most accurate depictions of the aftermath of a nuclear war.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film)</a>
Oh boy, here we go with the scare journalism again. Nuclear disarmament would be a great thing, but this garbage where we make entire generations live in fear of annihilation to sell (Checks Time ads) Flextra Solar panels... No thank you Time.
Forget about the physical effects. Even if we don’t have nuclear winter, even if fallout is not a concern in your area, you wouldn’t want to survive anywhere in the world the catastrophic destruction of the economy if you live in the cities.
"... but we're not using <i>Strategic</i> nukes, we only using <i>Tactical</i> nukes".<p>So where is the dividing line? When does a large Tactical Nuke become a small Strategic Nuke? It's all one spectrum. The use of a nuke is the use of a nuke. That's why there is a 'Use it or lose it' doctrine. Minutes after the first nuke is used, people will fire off everything they have.<p>Some people think a small tactical nuke can be 'got away with'. I'm extremely pessimistic about the world today. Nobody wins in a Nuclear War. I don't reckon we'll reach 2030.
Is it even possible for Russia to engage in an all out nuclear war at this point [0]? I don't want to find out, but it is an interesting question.<p>[0] <a href="https://wesodonnell.medium.com/russias-nukes-probably-don-t-work-here-s-why-bd686dec8b6" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://wesodonnell.medium.com/russias-nukes-probably-don-t-...</a>
If it comes to it by accident, or by shitheads, I'd hope I was instantly incinerated, rather than basically any other option, to include surviving perfectly intact.