“Don’t worry, be happy” is not a survival strategy.
Neither is “Guess I’ll die.”
The only way to win is not to play.
The game started 77 years ago.
The First Rule of Holes is stop digging.
2,000 years ago there was the Silk Road between China and Rome, and Rome was getting wheat from Egypt and tin from the British Isles.
2,000 years before that, Egypt was trading with other nations around the Mediterranean.
There is ample evidence of continent-wide trade networks even earlier in Europe and Africa.
Ditto for Australia and the Americas.
Extensive trade is as much a feature of our species H. sapiens as tool-use and using fire. Extensive trade is, in fact, a trait distinguishing us from other varieties of Homo.
Yes, humanity CAN exist without these trade networks but the result is not what we would call “civilization” and will only support a tiny population relative to what we currently have. It would be a hard-scrabble existence with high mortality rates.
There is a considerable difference between internal and external combustion engines. There’s not an easy conversion. The means to produce steam tractors is largely non-existent since they were supplanted by IC engines and it will take quite some time to rediscover/relearn that technology and start producing such tractors. Yes, there are a very few still in existence and working order. Not nearly enough to feed Australia (or anywhere else) before famine sets in.
A lot of people would die.
I don’t doubt people will try to survive, but a lot of them won’t succeed.
Even in a limited nuclear war a billion or two people will probably die.
I never said they wouldn’t, but there’s a big difference between “mass famine/population contraction” and “human extinction/end of civilization”, and the US responding in kind to a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine isn’t going to inevitably turn our world into a B-movie from the '60s.
How many warheads do you imagine such an exchange would entail, and would it be limited to the US and Russia?
Best-case scenario? The US lands a quick decapitation strike with a few dozen warheads, and Russia doesn’t retaliate because the people left in charge are peaceniks who are too worried about “starting World War III” or “human extinction” to fight back.
Worst-case scenario, a couple thousand nukes spread across North America, Europe, and Russia.
There’s your B-movie scenario. Pre-Industrial Age world economy can support maybe 500 million people. Not something we should aspire to.
OK, so you want to run a tractor off of coal. You’re starting with no existing model to copy, no prior expertise to build one, no industrial base to provide supples or energy for the production process. No internet to research ideas.
You’re already cold and hungry. You have about 6 weeks to harvest a crop before you starve to death. Oh, and planting season is still 3 months away. Go.
It’s not just the environment being argued here though. Disrupting the global supply chain is a no-go. So I think with conventional warfare, we must simply cede to Putin, so say the advocates of this approach.
This is simply unrealistic. Familiarize yourself with the Russian Dead Hand system. A decapitation strike would result in an automatic mass retaliation. No living operators needed.
The US has about 5,500 nukes. Russia has about 6,300. Total of 11,800.
Bear in mind that the 10-year global famine scenario only needed about 100 nukes.
Even if 90% of the nukes of both sides fail to deploy, we’re still taking 10x the number sufficient to essentially halt global food production for an entire decade. Fire up all the coal tractors you want, if summer temperatures are 20F below normal due to atmospheric soot, nothing’s growing. Including the Southern Hemisphere.
Try to appreciate the magnitude of the numbers involved here. I can appreciate the mental resistance to uncomfortable nearness of that kind of cataclysm, but that’s the actual risk, and it has been since at least the 1970’s.
But the question being debated is not whether or not things will suck. They will. People will die, lots and lots of people will die, and those who live will envy them. Civilization as we know it is over. That is not up for debate, and that is what you keep insisting on.
The question being debated is whether this spells extinction of humanity and the permanent end of civilization, and to that, I say no, it does not. We will survive, and we will rebuild, eventually, hopefully having learned a few lessons.
I’m gonna point out that that’s a pretty weak cite. Not only is the paper cited by the article, as said in the article, “not settled science”, but that they are referring to two different things here, one is a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, and the other is a full scale nuclear exchange, presumably between more armed countries. So your projection already takes into account the full number of warheads involved, so your comment of “That’s just for 100 warheads. A Russian decapitation strike would involve 2,000 warheads.” is simply incorrect.
Look, there were 528 atmospheric detonations before the above ground testing treaty was implemented. That didn’t cause these drastic climate changes that you seem to think would happen from 100.
I’ll agree the article is a bit misleading in the way that conflates the two scenarios, leading directly from an India Pakistan conflict to a major nuclear war, and so I can see where you would have thought that that was what it was talking about, but you were misled if you thought that it was talking about those consequences for that situation.
Yeah, they have modern infrastructure intact, we don’t. They may not be expanding anywhere soon but they will be doing so on a much more accelerated time table than those who no longer have any modern infrastructure.
They also still have many of their nukes, and the infrastructure to use them. Pretty easy to subjugate anyone who is left when you are the only one with that capability. You don’t need to invade, just demand tribute, and launch off a nuke at anyone who causes trouble as a lesson to everyone else to fall in line.
Once again, if this were true, then we would have a 10 year famine 5 times over already simply based on what we tested.
You seem to be assuming that all of those 528 detonations were followed by firestorms that destroyed entire cities. To my knowledge, that only happened twice. Therefore the inference you’re drawing here is incorrect.
You know what scares me more than Putin having his finger on the button? People who think a nuclear war is survivable having their finger on the button.
Nice find!
Eh. As with climate change it helps to take the long view. Life on earth will survive anthropogenic-caused global warming. It just won’t be human life.
It’s one reason I didn’t spawn.