Naw it is the old reset button. Maybe some sea life or insects. But mammals, reptiles, avian s, and amphibians are toast.
Most people and most life would survive a nuclear war, depending on the scale of it. That does not mean a billion or more people would die. There have been 520 above ground nuclear bombs set off and the earth survived with little notice.
Do you really think any nuclear country wouldn't launch everything they have if they were attacked with nukes. The thing is, all nuclear nations have the capability to see launches from other countries and retaliatory launches would be pretty much automatic. There is no such thing as limited nuclear war.
Good luck with that. Nuclear weapons today are more than 3,000 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a23306/nuclear-bombs-powerful-today/
Not me, if it came to nuclear war I would rather be at ground zero and be killed immediately instead of dying a slow painful death due to radiation poisoning.
Amen to that!! Nothing like rubbing your nose and it falls off! I should paint a big red X on my roof.
An option other than either total obliteration or "no radiation." A reasonable survival vote option. I think billions of people would survive. You just assert everyone dies - only allowing the absurd alternative of "no radiation." Typically, polls are written to only allow selecting from options reflecting to poll maker's opinion and your opinion is everyone will die, so you allowed no alternative option to vote for to your own opinion. Radiation already exists, including from nuclear testing - over 500 - and nuclear reactor meltdowns, mining of uranium, nuclear power wastes, nuclear submarines and natural sources. Everyone isn't dead from it. Radiation poisoning can be treated. Everyone is radiated every day already. We live anyway.
It is interesting how most people make that claim, that if there is a nuclear war they want one of the warheads to land directly on them. Limited nuclear war is very possible in that it could be limited to military targets and possibly key industrial and city centers. I'm fairly confident that is what actual plans are - not worldwide genocide including themselves. There could be a limit to battlefield usage. Most likely if Kim Jung Un obliterating a dozen major USA cities since it appears the majority of Americans and politicians are 100% agreeable to this future. Even a large scale usage of nuclear weapons short of launching them all would not extinct humans or upper life. 520 nuclear weapons have been set off in the world. Add nuclear reactor meltdowns to this. How many died of radiation? Does this suddenly become everyone dies because 500 becomes 3000? The world is a BIG place. Hollywood made movies such as the Day After that people now accept as a truism - and it's not. Of those who survive and do not receive a lethal dose of initial blast radiation, most could survive by merely staying indoors for a period of time. While radiation would continue to kill people by cancer, this could be across years to decades. Everyone eventually dies. I believe many and even most people would survive. Society would be different, but the human race would again rebuild. I would NOT look at it hoping I and all I know are instantly killed. Rather, I would hope we survive and then face new life survival challenges. Life is a survival challenge anyway.
They are not 3000 times dirtier. If you are not killed in the initial blast or radiation for the blast, you'll probably live as the vast majority of radiation in modern hydrogen bombs is just the initial radiation flash itself. The question then is environmental and atmospheric damage plus survival issues of destroyed infrastructure, supplies, food etc. https://www.quora.com/Did-nuclear-w...s-the-bombs-dropped-on-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki
The main killer of modern nuclear weapons is gamma rays - and they are momentary. They got you - or they didn't. Ideally, there would be a few minutes public broadcast warning for which the advise is simplicity. GET UNDERGROUND. Ideally down a subway or even just in a water run off or sewer line big enough to get into, or the basement of a large concrete floored building. Anything to shield you from the gamma rays. If the blast itself doesn't kill you and you aren't massively hit with gamma rays - you survived. Of course, you're coming to a real mess and core survival questions such as shelter, food, water, security. But you probably survived. MAYBE you'll die of some cancer in a week, month, year, 10 year or 50 years later from this, maybe not. It makes no sense to WANT to die now fearing you will die in the future, when it is certain you will die in the future anyway. Humans all over the world would survive.
In an all out nuclear war everyone one launches all their weapons at once. You can tell yourself anything you want to feel better but survival is low which is why MAD works. http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/ Nine countries together possess around 15,000 nuclear weapons. The United States and Russia maintain roughly 1,800 of their nuclear weapons on high-alert status – ready to be launched within minutes of a warning. Most are many times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945. A single nuclear warhead, if detonated on a large city, could kill millions of people, with the effects persisting for decades.
That's what I was trying to do, pull out those here who think nuclear war is a viable option. It does not matter that we use radiation today because we take safeguards to limit it's dangers, not always successfully. The radiation of nuclear war has no safeguards and the aftermath would be more deadly than the actual blasts.
The poll doesn't ask about "all out nuclear war," only nuclear war. Obviously the more nuclear weapons used the more people die. But the understanding of MAD makes "all out nuclear war" highly unlikely as it is suicidal. More likely, by far, is a tit for tat nuclear war such as Kim Jung Un launching at Tokyo, Seoul and half a dozen American cities - and the USA retaliating. Tens of millions die and the USA's economy and society massively damaged. But life would go on. Battlefield usage also may occur, such as Russia threatened Turkey with if it invaded Syria. The principle of MAD does NOT mean nuclear weapons are never used. It means none of the major powers use them all. The danger of nuclear war is not the major nuclear powers, but the lesser ones such as North Korea, Pakistan, India and soon Iran and Israel.
It does not take two to start a war, only one. The country that is attacked rarely picked war. Rather, war was thrust upon them. The question also is whether nuclear weapons retaliation is viable in response to a nuclear weapons attack. If Kim Jung Un used nuclear weapons against Tokyo or Seoul, is a nuclear weapons retaliation viable? My answer is yes. What is your answer?
My answer is no because possible response from China and Russia. Total invasion and conventional war with NK, yes.
The problem with tit for tat is that it never stays that way it always goes toward one upsmanship you hit me with one I hit you with 2.
