No, I haven't. Nuclear war is extremely scary because they totally underestimated the destruction. Its much worse than we are led to believe.
(a solar storm followed by a multitude of nuclear plant meltdowns would be similar but slightly different than nuclear war. Cities would not all be burned as in a nuclear war, most (almost all, likely) of humanity would survive the initial set of events however as power and electronic infratructure would be subject to massive failure - operations which depended on it would fail, in the case of nuclear power plants, catastrophically. If that happened, millions would likely eventually die from radiation sickness, and billions from starvation due to lack of edible food, and its high costs. Cancers and crippling levels of inflammation would make the survivors lives shorter and/or painful because of biological changes, for example, cells cannot repair themselves due to inhibition of protein synthesis. Radiation causes innumerable health problems, including neurological problems and systemic inflammation similar to those experienced by people in chemotherapy i.e. "chemo brain" or who have undergone whole brain irradiation. (Survivors of hurricane Katrina and Sandy also had a similar issue "Katrina Brain, which was caused by heavy exposure to toxic mold which contains mycotoxins which are similar to radiation and chemotherapy in terms of the damage they do to the body and fast growing cells in the brain.)
The aftermath of a planetary post solar storm scenario could be so difficult that problems would be unsolvable and a substantial percentage of humanity would die off. The largest numbers of deaths would again be among those who were unable to win in the struggle for food. its also quite possible wars would ensue for any remaining plots of arable land that were not contaminated, if any existed. (maybe places like the dryer side of New Zealand (fallout of many products of distant nuclear accidents are highest where there is the most rain) or South Africa would be less irradiated - so still habitable, at least for a while at the beginning, remember that many of the meltdowns would likely continue for a long time without human intervention in areas that had been abandoned, or where the local population, including those deemed responsible for cleaning up the "accident" or accidents had fled or at that point, been killed by the exposure.)
The world cannot afford thse kinds of events as they can potentially make large parts of the globe uninhabitable.
If that occurred, the cost of fixing things would be beyond the capability of humanity to solve.
Any governments from before the war left after this would be faced with an unsolvable set of problems and almost certainly any survivors of the original combatants would be blamed for the huge losses.
I think a good case can be made for nuclear war being so unwinnable and so likely to result in the world's destruction, that it itself must be a crime, even in self defense. I think that given these risks, a similar argument might be makeable for nuclear fission if society does not make adjustments that make corporations more accoutable for the costs of cleanup. It seems that their irresponsibility will almost certainly result in the cost being dumped in the lap of nations and peoples already stripped of all potentially income producing assets by neoliberalism (i.e. privatization.)
This is one of the problems of our age, another being that the sacrifices of society which are being demanded by "global capital" are larger than any possible gains at this point because its impossible for businesses to deliver the huge returns allegedly being demanded by this "highly mobile global capital" without shedding the current middle class and awarding their jobs to a new group, basically to pay them off for their help in subjugating the rest of the world.
Rather than dump things like the so called "multilateral system" that are of questionable value, they propose to engage in a race to the bottom, consuming the middle class in developed nations on the way (but not creating one in the developing world, either.) Also they want to totally destroy the environment to create new means of rent extraction with pollution.
So, back to nuclear war.. if anybody survived, they- profits would not be pouring in as they would like to think. Quite the opposite, we would "devolve", in the aftermath. Even in a small nuclear war 2 billion would die, basically the world's children and those over the age at which one can defend oneself from predators intent on eating you, because the cost of food would rise above almost everybody's ability to pay.
Also, chronic exposure to radiation creates children with tiny brains. Those born in that environments would be crippled with a multitude of health problems, and many would be stillborn or die shortly after birth. We would lose all our children and old people.
Additionally cannibalism could become common as society breaks down under such conditions. People become prey valuable to others as food.
Not a world that anybody alive now would be comfortable with.
A nuclear war would quickly escalate and in a worst case scenario, significant amounts of atmosphere could be propelled outside of the gravitational pull of Earth. We might lose our oxygen and water.
Most species on earth would die off. Its possible that all eukarotic life would be heavily impacted.
Only the simplest life forms would survive.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
