[TeMPOraL]

Fair enough. Access to some amounts of computing may be initially available, but I still believe it would not last more than a few years.

It all boils down to supply chains and the economy, basically. Electronics capable of working with today's data storage media is incredibly complex, and manufacturing replacements will require large and insanely expensive fabs. Those fabs themselves are full of precise tools and exotic materials, every one of which requiring other specialized fabs, using tools requiring other fabs... The whole pipeline from dirt to CPU involves many thousands of people directly, and itself can only exist in an advanced civilization like ours - where lots of other people do everything from agriculture to catering to logistics to law and law enforcement. To build a CPU, you first need to build a civilization like ours. And to build a civilization like ours, you need cheap energy sources - it literally wouldn't be possible without them.

> GP claimed civilization would be unable to rise again, implying thousands of years of knowledge would disappear.

Our best bet to retain all that knowledge after total civilizational collapse is to form orders - not unlike medieval monks - whose sole purpose would be to make exact paper copies of that knowledge. Otherwise, after computers eventually die, a lot of that knowledge would disappear (because it wouldn't be used), and what would stay would get increasingly distorted over time.

[AstralStorm]

The most problematic would be the high density integrated chips and storage media. Lower densities on scale of say 80s tech are doable in a basement with the right know how and most basic electronics can be fixed or replaced easily enough, (The problem is stated as how to make a good enough plasma doping chamber to make transistors.) If at a cost to size and efficiency. (Even advanced voltage regulators...)

That said, a lot of that hardware, especially rugged, would easily last for a few decades.

We'd have to use cassettes for data storage once again.

[portofcall]

I feel like this conversation is taking place in a strange parallel universe in which people don’t appreciate what 15,000+ nuclear warheads being exchanged would do. The fires started from them alone would be an extinction event, and the kinds of incredibly remote areas in which you might find long-term survivors would not be laden with caches of electronics and populations capable of using them.

Getting enough food and water that wasn’t dreadfully contaminated alone would be the preoccupation of generations. By the time anyone had ideas about rising from barbarism, what we think of as civilization now would be rusted, eroded, and overgrown.

All of that assumes the most optimistic of assumptions regarding global wildfires, teratogenic effects, and nuclear winter. We wouldn’t be using magnetic tapes, we’d be using rocks and sticks and animal hides.

[Retric]

The earth's surface is ~200 million square miles. 1 bomb per 13,000 square miles seems bad, but we had survivors very close to ground zero with even H-Bombs and these nukes would not be eventually spread over the surface. Many people would be 5,000+ miles from the closest detention.

Remember we actually detonated a large number of nukes on the surface with minimal impact on global radiation exposure.

While relatively small by modern standards Yoshitaka Kawamot was less than 1km from the hiroshima blast and survived. Yes, these nukes may be 100+x as powerful but destruction is far from 1:1 with yield sizes.

[portofcall]

People are not evenly distributed on the surface of the earth, most of which is ocean. Nukes do. It target randomly, they target population centers and strategically valuable regions. Most people live where nukes are aimed, which is why they are aimed there.

15,000 warheads concentrated where humans live, on the fraction of the 27% of Earth that isn’t water. Be reasonable.