Right now 350–500 million people a year suffer from malaria, billions live in places of massive economy and infrastructure disruption, and with health prospects most likely worse than first world person would have in post-thermonuclear-war environment.
And what do you think the effect of a full-scale global nuclear war on the poorest one fifth of the world would be?
Do you think that they would be unaffected or not affected much?
Swapping nuclear warfare for end of third world poverty would be a good exchange for most people. And nuclear warfare is a remote possibility, while third world poverty is real and here with us now.
Also notice how much better is life in Hiroshima compared to Congo.
What should be realized here, however, is that Hiroshima could become a relatively ok place because it could receive a huge amount of help for being part of the country with such a high GDP.
Hiroshima didn’t magically get better. A large scale nuclear war would destroy our economy, and thus our capability to respond and patch the damage that way. For that matter, I’m not even sure our undisturbed response systems could be able to deal with more than a few nuked cities.
Also please consider that Hiroshima was nuked by a 18 kt bomb, which is nothing like the average 400 − 500 kt nukes we have now.
How could it receive huge amounts of help if in 1949 where rebuilding started Japan did not have high GDP? Now we have a lot higher GDP, and if all our major cities are too expensive to rebuild, we can just move to other cities.
Based on similar situations (WW2, fall of Soviet Union), disruption of economy will most likely not last long, so people after global nuclear war will most likely have plenty of money to use.
Yes indeed. Do you expect that to remain true after a nuclear war too ? More basically, I suppose I could resume my idea as follows : you can poke a hole in a country’s infrastructure or economy, and the hole will heal with time because the rest is still healthy enough to help with that—just as a hole poked into a life form can heal, provided that the hole isn’t big enough to kill the thing, or send it into a downward spiral of degeneration.
But yes, society isn’t quite an organism in the same sense. There you probably could have full scale cataplasia, and see something survive someplace, and perhaps even from there, start again from scratch (or better, or worse, than scratch).
As I said, economy of countries destroyed after WW1 and WW2 picked up where it left extremely quickly, and definitely did not result in lasting return to stone age as some imagine. This makes me guess the economic disruption of a global thermonuclear war wouldn’t be that long either.
This is an outside view, and it’s pretty clear, but I understand some people would rather take an inside view, which would be much more pessimistic.
And what do you think the effect of a full-scale global nuclear war on the poorest one fifth of the world would be?
Do you think that they would be unaffected or not affected much?
By 2100 hopefully we won’t have the third world any more.
Swapping nuclear warfare for end of third world poverty would be a good exchange for most people. And nuclear warfare is a remote possibility, while third world poverty is real and here with us now.
Also notice how much better is life in Hiroshima compared to Congo.
What should be realized here, however, is that Hiroshima could become a relatively ok place because it could receive a huge amount of help for being part of the country with such a high GDP.
Hiroshima didn’t magically get better. A large scale nuclear war would destroy our economy, and thus our capability to respond and patch the damage that way. For that matter, I’m not even sure our undisturbed response systems could be able to deal with more than a few nuked cities. Also please consider that Hiroshima was nuked by a 18 kt bomb, which is nothing like the average 400 − 500 kt nukes we have now.
How could it receive huge amounts of help if in 1949 where rebuilding started Japan did not have high GDP? Now we have a lot higher GDP, and if all our major cities are too expensive to rebuild, we can just move to other cities.
Based on similar situations (WW2, fall of Soviet Union), disruption of economy will most likely not last long, so people after global nuclear war will most likely have plenty of money to use.
Yes indeed. Do you expect that to remain true after a nuclear war too ? More basically, I suppose I could resume my idea as follows : you can poke a hole in a country’s infrastructure or economy, and the hole will heal with time because the rest is still healthy enough to help with that—just as a hole poked into a life form can heal, provided that the hole isn’t big enough to kill the thing, or send it into a downward spiral of degeneration.
But yes, society isn’t quite an organism in the same sense. There you probably could have full scale cataplasia, and see something survive someplace, and perhaps even from there, start again from scratch (or better, or worse, than scratch).
As I said, economy of countries destroyed after WW1 and WW2 picked up where it left extremely quickly, and definitely did not result in lasting return to stone age as some imagine. This makes me guess the economic disruption of a global thermonuclear war wouldn’t be that long either.
This is an outside view, and it’s pretty clear, but I understand some people would rather take an inside view, which would be much more pessimistic.