Scientists from the American Rutgers University have completed a detailed analysis of a possible nuclear war between Russia and the USA - the results are chilling. A mega-nuclear apocalypse would have a catastrophic impact on food production, with more than five billion people starving to death.
Countries including the UK, US, Germany, France and China would experience complete devastation, with almost all residents dying within the second year of the conflict, according to the study. On the other hand, countries like Argentina and Australia would do well relative to zero deaths despite the assumption that all livestock would die and there would be no trade with other nations.
In a study published in the journal Nature Food, scientists considered six scenarios involving nuclear wars of various sizes – including those between India and Pakistan or the US and Russia. They calculated how much sun-blocking soot would enter the atmosphere from firestorms created by exploding nuclear weapons. Even with the smallest conflict, more than a billion people could be denied food due to crop failures. The number of those killed directly on the battlefield is estimated at 50 to 100 million.
However, a full-scale nuclear war could see such a huge drop in crop yields that 75 percent of the world's population would starve to death in just two years. The researchers came up with the estimates by ignoring the initial number of deaths from nuclear weapons and instead modeling the decline of agriculture from the decline in sunlight. In most countries, they believe there would be at least a 90 percent reduction in calories.
>Countries such as Australia, Argentina, Panama, Paraguay and Haiti would maintain their caloric expenditure because they already grew hardier crops such as wheat and have smaller populations
Most of the particles decay rapidly. Even so, beyond the blast radius of the exploding weapons there would be areas (hot spots) the survivors could not enter because of radioactive contamination from long-lived radioactive isotopes like strontium 90 or cesium 137. For the survivors of a nuclear war, this lingering radiation hazard could represent a grave threat for as long as 1 to 5 years after the attack.
Predictions of the amount and levels of the radioactive fallout are difficult because of several factors. These include; the yield and design of the weapon, the height of the explosion, the nature of the surface beneath the point of burst, and the meteorological conditions, such as wind direction and speed.
An air burst can produce minimal fallout if the fireball does not touch the ground. On the other hand, a nuclear explosion occurring at or near the earth's surface can result in severe contamination by the radioactive fallout.
We should all bumfuck to Nuka World and call it a day.
James Williams
Yeah as far as I know the idea that nuclear war is gonna create a nuclear winter isn't really a plausible theory anymore. It was an 80s meme.
Just don't get hit directly and you guys will be fine.
Xavier Harris
where is the link to this article?
Jose Williams
>Just don't get hit directly and you guys will be fine. until someone breaks out the cobalt toys, or you live down river from place that gets heavily ground bursted
Jayden James
Won't happen, nothing ever happens.
Connor Smith
New Zealand. That's why all the billionaires are relocating there
Julian Phillips
Why do you want to survive? More than stupid idea.
Jonathan Smith
Any place that has any kind of "elite" bunkers will get hit if this will be a real conflict. Anything else will make it an inside job.
Carson Reyes
I'm going to have to make you guys a map of the safest places from nuclear war.
Christopher Brown
Uh ..I always thought it was a metaphor. Suggesting the radiation fallout is the "bad weather."
Ryan Thomas
>Anything else will make it an inside job. and if its an inside job, I'll drop the bunker buster on their bunker myself
