• GrouchyGrouse [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Its not surviving the nukes its surviving the aftermath. The chaos. The desperation. The refugees. The lack of food. The dead crops. The wildfires. The sky turning black.

    • riley
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

      • GrouchyGrouse [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Everything is fine if you can still see the little holes in the night blanket that let the light in.

        • riley
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          deleted by creator

    • ultraviolet [she/her]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Yeah but it will cancel out global warming. Futurama said so :so-true:

      • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        In fairness, there's no faster way to get to zero-carbon emissions than a global nuclear exchange. Talk about your degrowth.

        • GrouchyGrouse [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          All the cities burning and the forests burning actually undo all that. After all that, yes, technically then you'd see a massive drop off in carbon emissions.

          • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
            ·
            3 years ago

            I don't know how many nukes are headed for the middle of the Amazon or the jungles of Indonesia. I suspect interior Africa will be one of the safest places on Earth, simply because its so far down the list of places with infrastructure worth bombing. And while radioactive waste will be a problem for animal life, plant life is significantly more resilient. No shortage of trees growing up around Chernobyl and Fukushima.

            I wouldn't want to be a land-bound apex predator during nuclear winter. Or any kind of commercial agricultural crop, like livestock or rice. But Yellowstone will do just fine.