• Pifpafpouf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      A single nuclear warhead is not capable of ending life as we know it, where did you read that ?

      • r00ty@kbin.life
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah. The 7.5 times (or is it 9.5 times, I forget) thing that has been thrown around since the cold war days never rings true to me.

        The primary and secondary strikes for both sides will take out people living close to either a military installation or a major city.

        Also there’s no way even a world war would involve every single country and every single island. There’s no way human life would be entirely obliterated. Most us posting here, perhaps. Certainly I’d likely be taken out in the second or third wave (close to London and also close to a military base). But life would go on.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Many of those are due for retirement purely due to age. There isn’t a replacement system for many of them. Furthermore, countermeasures have gotten better; future designs will better take these into account.

      • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Truth on lemmy gets downvoted. It’s really that simple. Most of our Nukes are the same age as our grandparents at this point. Our ICBMs are running on 5.25" floppy disks from the 70s. All this shit is OLD and desperately needs modernization for safety and security.

        But if the headline was 'USA to replace ICE nukes with EV nukes" it would be upvoted and celebrated.