|
|
|
|
|
|
by hopelite
286 days ago
|
|
|
This is so naive. I suggest you inform yourself more about things you clearly know nothing about. Ironically Iowa would be very much affected and likely depopulated by fallout from primary nuclear targets in Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, and North Dakota; not to mention the primary and/or secondary command and control targets in Iowa. Similarly Idaho not only has at the very leas secondary targets in Air Force bases and the nuclear weapons lab, but it would likely also get fallout radiation from the primary targets as winds shift. These things are based on current research and the military and government's own analysis and predictions. There is also a book you may want to read called "Nuclear War: a Scenario" by Annie Jakobsen [1] so you can be more informed before you blather. It's a summary of what the government expects from a nuclear war, which would very much cause a nuclear winter and the death of at least 5 billion people. And she does not even take into account things you are also ignorant of, that South America/Caribbean, Africa, and Australia are very much also nuclear targets due to military installations in all those places, not to mention the famine. You should really try reading the books I mentioned about what happened during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, since you are also ignorant of what happens in America under such circumstances. There are many other events like the LA riots that also shine a light on on the reality of breakdown in the USA and any other place that is not culturally homogeneous, when the rules no longer apply and there is no one left to keep the savages at bay. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War:_A_Scenario |
|
|
Nukes are bad, but not that bad. Nuclear Winter has never checked out under any serious analysis either.
We’ve had multiple volcanic eruptions orders of magnitude larger than all nuclear armed countries arsenals too.