Would WWIII actually end all of humanity?

[Snowy_One]

Let's suppose, tomorrow, Obama unwittingly steals Putin's lunch from the U.N. fridge and it's finally on. All out nuclear war. U.S., England, China, Russia, Japan, France, everyone going at it with nukes as missiles rain down, soldiers rush forwards, and the secret clone of Stalin goes mano-e-mano with the secret clone of Washington in giant mech suits up in outer space. Full on, all-out, world war III.

Would humanity survive?

IMO... It would survive the war, but the FALLOUT might be very damaging. Simply put some nations are not really worth anything and, even in a full-out war, it's unlikely a place like Botswana will be targeted with a nuke. So it seems likely that the nukes, missiles, guns, and everything wouldn't kill humanity; but the world left to the survivors might be near uninhabitable. At the very least there would be tons of irradiated land and water along with a ton of species (R.I.P. Llama's) being dead. It might be the fallout that kills mankind, not the nukes. Of course, man could also survive and end up evolving, which would also, technically, 'end' mankind as well.

[Parrhesia]

I mean, sure, in a hypothetical situation which wouldn't happen where everyone dies, everyone would die. Sure.

[Ansem]

It is a silly hypothetical, but I don't think mankind is strong enough to get rid of itself.

Edited December 2, 2015 by :smug:

[Rapier]

what is even the probability of this happening?

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

Well one thing's for sure, war exists no matter what. As for WWIII, I'm gonna go off on a limb to say that its an unlikely scenario (give or take).

[Phoenix Wright]

there is no discussion to be had here.

if we suppose the west^tm and the east^tm unload their respective nuclear arsenals on the planet earth, that's the end of the story. it's possible to do some back of the envelope calculation (avg. destructive power of western and eastern arsenals), estimate the most efficient strike zones, and come up with an answer on just how much of the earth's landmass is destroyed. but that doesn't mean anything. if you blow up the united states, russia, china, etc., you've destroyed not only a significant portion of humanity itself, but also of the ecosystem, from which it would not be able to recover from in quite some time. those who survive wouldn't live long, and i'm doubting anyone would even really survive.

the probability of this happening is zero because no one is fucking dumb enough to end humanity. people may be vain enough, or evil enough, etc. etc. etc., but are not able to make it happen. that's why nuclear warheads are deterrents, not weapons. the threat is good enough.

let's suppose someone three times your size, ten times your strength, one-hundred times your fighting ability, etc. asks for your money. you're cornered with nowhere to run, and all the person asks is you give them your money and you're free to go. are you gonna try to fight?

it's a silly example, but i guess it gets the point across.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Tryhard]

IMO... It would survive the war, but the FALLOUT might be very damaging.

You've been playing one of the Fallout games, I assume?

Probability is looking exceedingly low if the only example is a game series that began as essentially a dark comedy about the hubris and stupidity of humanity.

Though maybe we can get around to digging some underground vaults...

Edited December 2, 2015 by Tryhard

[Original Alear]

Of course, man could also survive and end up evolving, which would also, technically, 'end' mankind as well.

Not necessarily. Speciation can occur without the death of a species. At least, I'm pretty sure it can.

Like you said, the war itself probably wouldn't wipe out every person everywhere on earth. However, if it was extensive enough it could result in lowering humanity's population count and reduce the number of populations to a point where the remaining human populations would be more at risk of extinction from other things.

Another problem would be the loss of knowledge. A small number of experts on a certain subject might be lost, cutting out crucial pieces of a larger body of knowledge. This is just a guess on my part.

Though maybe we can get around to digging some underground vaults...

10 FEMALES TO EVERY MALE

if you blow up the united states, russia, china, etc., you've destroyed not only a significant portion of humanity itself, but also of the ecosystem, from which it would not be able to recover from in quite some time. those who survive wouldn't live long, and i'm doubting anyone would even really survive.

Do we know enough about the interaction of ecosystems on a global scale to know that would be the case? I do know of nuclear winter...

[Phoenix Wright]

it's not really the interaction/consequences of ecosystems (which we do know, and would be catastrophic) that i was getting at, but the global economy would be utterly destroyed. in a globalized world, nations let other nations specialize to reinforce trade and relations with each other--if a nation like the us or china were obliterated, nothing that is usually produced from that nation could be exported. this spells doom for lots of countries.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Snowy_One]

Yea, but a ruined economy and loss of knowledge is a LOT different from all human beings dying off. Economies can be rebuilt and knowledge reclaimed. If humanity dies there won't be anyone left to do either, for obvious reasons.

[Skynstein]

95% of mankind dies and the rest is forced to live in citadels ruled by Immortan Joes.

[Phoenix Wright]

Yea, but a ruined economy and loss of knowledge is a LOT different from all human beings dying off. Economies can be rebuilt and knowledge reclaimed. If humanity dies there won't be anyone left to do either, for obvious reasons.

my point is that humanity wouldn't be able to rebuild.

[blah the Prussian]

my point is that humanity wouldn't be able to rebuild.

Okay, if we were able to make civilization out of the Ice Age I think we can make civilization out of nuclear holocaust.

[TheAssassinMercenary]

If this scenario did happen, I don't know if humanity would die off completely, but it would definitely take a massive blow. I don't think this scenario would happe, however. Our world leaders know the massive destruction a nuclear war would cost, so they will avoid it at all costs.

[Life]

Serious question:

In said example of nuclear holocaust, is Israel actively targeted and if so, by whom?

[Rapier]

hell, Israel's antibomb system might as well make them survive it

and then we'll live in a world ruled by jews, who will establish an empire and conquer the world.

what a mysterious alternative universe. It seems the tables were turned.

[Acacia Sgt]

I don't think even with the close calls of the Cold War it would've meant the end of humanity.

As for today... even if WWIII happened, I'd think it would sooner be conventional over a nuclear exchange. So humanity wouldn't be at risk any time soon.

[Life]

hell, Israel's antibomb system might as well make them survive it

and then we'll live in a world ruled by jews, who will establish an empire and conquer the world.

what a mysterious alternative universe. It seems the tables were turned.

More like "we die like the rats that the rest of the world considers us to be".

You can't have a world ruled by Jews, it defies the laws of history, time and space.

[Naughx]

I do not think humanity can completly wipe themselves up with current technologies, many are going to survive but they would probably have wished that they were dead.

[Rapier]

More like "we die like the rats that the rest of the world considers us to be".

You can't have a world ruled by Jews, it defies the laws of history, time and space.

don't think Israel is alone just because the left (or most of it) sees you badly. There are people who like Israel and admire their struggle, myself included. They've got to have balls to survive being surrounded by murderous psychopaths.

[Phoenix Wright]

Okay, if we were able to make civilization out of the Ice Age I think we can make civilization out of nuclear holocaust.

definitely not.

ice and snow don't destroy molecules quite the way highly-energetic radioactive elements do. the two aren't even comparable--especially since nuclear fallout lasts longer than most ice ages. the oldest and longest ice age, huronian glaciation, lasted around 300 million years and the only life that existed at the time were unicellular organisms.

why do you think so?

Serious question:

In said example of nuclear holocaust, is Israel actively targeted and if so, by whom?

it's been decided that israel will be the only surviving nation

Edited December 3, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Anouleth]

No. Neither Russia or the US are interested in turning the entire planet into a lifeless rock. I think that the United States and Russia would be more likely to activate their nuclear weapons by mistake than on purpose!

[amiabletemplar]

Unless the actual intention of the nuclear strikes was "obliterate as much of the human race as possible," humanity would definitely survive the war itself.

If we assume that a non-trivial portion of the world's nuclear arsenals goes unused (which is very likely--command lines would die long before all weaponry could be launched, and many such weapons are kept in storage or partially dismantled), and that most of the weapons target only the highest-population-density areas of the world, e.g. national and regional capital cities, the top 10 metropolitan statistical areas, military targets, etc. then there are HUGE swathes of the world that would go completely untouched. Africa, for example, is a very low-value target for most of the continent: Egypt, South Africa, and maybe a couple other countries are "worthwhile," but you're talking about hundreds of thousands, even millions of square miles/km that won't be touched by nuclear fire whatsoever. Australia, apart from the biggest 3-4 cities, will be largely untouched as well. Northern Europe, vast swathes of the Middle East and Russia, pretty much the entire continent of South America, the whole "breadbasket of the US" region...all of these areas are extremely low-value targets, and while they may be low population density, they still account for a sizable fraction of the human race when you add them all together.

Yes, globalization is a weakness when viewed in terms of a nuclear catastrophe. The population of the human race would absolutely fall, precipitously, in the decade following a nuclear annihilation event. The primary causes of death would be starvation and disease (partially through losing access to clean drinking water), but exposure (due to losing access to electricity) and violence would be non-negligible contributors as well. But as long as at least one area can support 2000-3000 people--which we've been able to do since before antiquity--the human race would not die out. Hell, even just 500 people would be enough to keep the race going; it would just take a really really long time for us to "bounce back."

So...I find it fantastically unlikely that the human race would be completely wiped out. There are just too many of us, with too much infrastructure and already-procured resources available, spread over too much area. Without an intentional, systematic effort to exterminate humanity and eliminate the resources we need to survive (e.g. nuking ridiculously useless targets, like arable farmland with low population density, or Inuit communities in Alaska that live more-or-less 'off the grid'), I just can't see it. Now, how long the recovery takes? That's completely up in the air. It could take mere decades, if the exchange is just a handful of nukes targeting national capitals and primary military targets (IMO the most likely scenario out of a set of very unlikely scenarios), or it could take a couple centuries, if all metropolitan statistical areas with over 500k people are attacked. Note that this "recovery" does not mean "back to precisely the way things were before," but rather "back to a global economy and population achieving stable/sustained growth analogous to present day."

Humanity does not, and has not ever, had the power to completely eliminate Earth's biosphere. Even if we fielded every single nuclear weapon we have, I sincerely doubt we could guarantee the sterilization of a single continent, let alone the entire planet. Could we precipitate a mass extinction akin to what felled the dinosaurs, or what ended the Permian period/Paleozoic era? Possibly. Again, though, such globe-spanning elimination of life would require at least some level of intent, a focused effort to eliminate life, rather than hitting "high-value" military (e.g. bases, factories) and civilian (e.g. high-density population centers, wealth-generating locations) targets.

Edited December 5, 2015 by amiabletemplar

[Phoenix Wright]

radiation poisoning would be more than a serious issue. the climate effects brought about these powerful bombs, in addition to the poisoning effects, in addition to the lasting effects of radiation, in addition to the actual physical destructive power i would say spell doom for the human race. it doesn't take as much as you think to destroy a continent, but i think i should read some papers on it before i make the claim with certainty.

i suppose there's a chance the human race would be fine, but as far as i can tell it's unlikely.

[Yojinbo]

Serious question:

In said example of nuclear holocaust, is Israel actively targeted and if so, by whom?

Which one of Israel's arch-enemies actually has atomic warheads in their possession? Israel alone has probably more of them than the rest of the world combined [exaggeration alert].

If we look at things from a strictly logic/objective point of view there's like no chance of an open conflict between "the west" [uSA, Israel, NATO, EU, Daesh] and the "rest" [iran, Russia, China, et al] anytime. All of these countries are relatively stable and have strong economic ties among each other. They would not sacrifice that status for an open war against the other side. If a conflict happens it's usually a proxy war in some unstable buffer state like Ukraine, Yemen, Iraq or Afghanistan.

For an actual conflict to the extent of a fucking world war it pretty much takes one of the big hitters to be directly involved and lead to some chain reaction. Something like India's economic uprise in the next decade leading to conflict with China over ressources [like water] seems a lot more threatening to a lot more people than shenanigans the between Israel and Iran.