We will not die on the issue of the threat of a nuclear apocalypse
Inspired by a post. Counting the number of atomic bombs required to completely destroy humanity. Something is wrong here!?! , since the answer is too large and detailed, I decided to arrange it as a post, not a comment in the subject.
1. To investigate an abstract situation, if all these bombs are successfully delivered (one of the main problems of their use) to their places and comparatively used at the same time, to put it mildly, it makes no sense.
Firstly, ALL bombs will not be delivered exactly, the countries (not all but the main ones) that are members of the "nuclear club" have quite successfully (deferred effectiveness issues) have created (and will actively upgrade) missile defense systems that will be able to destroy quite a bit (in theory EVERYTHING that a potential adversary has) the number of these bombs.
Secondly, by no means all of these bombs are equipped with a working delivery and service system, lie in warehouses with a theoretical deadline of “entering the battle”, and it also looks like they will remain there at X hour, due to the destruction of part of the service personnel and bases ( information about a considerable part of which is unambiguously available to participants).
Thirdly, there is such a thing as the human factor, well, I do not believe that all the "nuclear" countries conscientiously and efficiently prepare service personnel for weapons of mass destruction, which without any reasoning and prejudice will calmly observe and create a worldwide apocalypse. Also, the launch control system is not an instant start button, after which it remains only to 'tear off the hair on the head'. Thousands of ways to complicate the launch (bureaucratic, organizational, technical) and even more to cancel an already launched charge. All this will also significantly reduce the amount of 'useful explosions'.
2. It is impossible by chance (questions of fears of accidentally creating a self-sustaining reaction when studying and experimenting, such as in horror stories about LHC, we will leave it behind the scenes, as an offtopic) to arrange a worldwide and fatal apocalypse. Too complicated this thing :). To harm yes, it is possible to destroy, certainly not. To use for this ONLY nuclear weapons in general is nonsense, there are much more effective means, for example, military poisonous substances (in Russia, for example, such a quantity is storedthat it would be enough to repeatedly poison the entire planet) or biological weapons, the latter, in theory, is generally most effective for creating an apocalypse, after which no survivor will have a chance (a person, all animals are still harder to destroy, the same insects have very good 'survival margin').
3. Well, I’ll throw a fly in the ointment, on the topic of people's survival after the apocalypse. An interesting discussion was somehow found on forum.ixbt.com - The sudden disappearance of 99.99999% of people on Earth , which discusses much more hothouse conditions for the disappearance of most of the world's population, the survival of survivors and the preservation of cultural, scientific and technological potential.
1. To investigate an abstract situation, if all these bombs are successfully delivered (one of the main problems of their use) to their places and comparatively used at the same time, to put it mildly, it makes no sense.
Firstly, ALL bombs will not be delivered exactly, the countries (not all but the main ones) that are members of the "nuclear club" have quite successfully (deferred effectiveness issues) have created (and will actively upgrade) missile defense systems that will be able to destroy quite a bit (in theory EVERYTHING that a potential adversary has) the number of these bombs.
Secondly, by no means all of these bombs are equipped with a working delivery and service system, lie in warehouses with a theoretical deadline of “entering the battle”, and it also looks like they will remain there at X hour, due to the destruction of part of the service personnel and bases ( information about a considerable part of which is unambiguously available to participants).
Thirdly, there is such a thing as the human factor, well, I do not believe that all the "nuclear" countries conscientiously and efficiently prepare service personnel for weapons of mass destruction, which without any reasoning and prejudice will calmly observe and create a worldwide apocalypse. Also, the launch control system is not an instant start button, after which it remains only to 'tear off the hair on the head'. Thousands of ways to complicate the launch (bureaucratic, organizational, technical) and even more to cancel an already launched charge. All this will also significantly reduce the amount of 'useful explosions'.
2. It is impossible by chance (questions of fears of accidentally creating a self-sustaining reaction when studying and experimenting, such as in horror stories about LHC, we will leave it behind the scenes, as an offtopic) to arrange a worldwide and fatal apocalypse. Too complicated this thing :). To harm yes, it is possible to destroy, certainly not. To use for this ONLY nuclear weapons in general is nonsense, there are much more effective means, for example, military poisonous substances (in Russia, for example, such a quantity is storedthat it would be enough to repeatedly poison the entire planet) or biological weapons, the latter, in theory, is generally most effective for creating an apocalypse, after which no survivor will have a chance (a person, all animals are still harder to destroy, the same insects have very good 'survival margin').
3. Well, I’ll throw a fly in the ointment, on the topic of people's survival after the apocalypse. An interesting discussion was somehow found on forum.ixbt.com - The sudden disappearance of 99.99999% of people on Earth , which discusses much more hothouse conditions for the disappearance of most of the world's population, the survival of survivors and the preservation of cultural, scientific and technological potential.