|
|
|
|
|
by isomel
1563 days ago
|
|
> make large areas unlivable for thousands of years I think you are over-estimating the cost of this.
I contest the use of 'large'.
The 30km radius exclusion zone is nothing compared to the surface occupied by deserts, ice floe, or whatever of the many others existing unhinabitable places. > and affect multiple countries and also killing a lot of people. Because the war has been doing that already, at a even larger scale: thousands of civilians killed, many wounded, millions displaced. That's already worse than the consequences of a nuclear meltdown. |
|
Land location isn't fungible, though. That 30km radius exclusion zone is (was?) much more valuable land than some random patch of desert or ice. Being near other settled land, and having access to infrastructure, food, etc. is important. Taking valuable land like that and making it uninhabitable is much worse than it just being a random patch of sand in the middle of some desert somewhere, or a big piece of ice floating in an arctic region.