Who’s Afraid of a Nuclear War Apocalypse?
Who’s Afraid of a Nuclear War Apocalypse?
Is nuclear war likely? Will it end in total annihilation? Is humanity bordering extinction? Should we be afraid of a nuclear World War III?
With all the threatening and nuclear dick-measuring going on, you might be shaking in your boots right about now. I can’t blame you. The very thing that has kept us “safe” and in a nuclear Mexican stan-off is what could be the end of us all.
How likely is nuclear World War III?
When facing what appears to be imminent danger, it’s wise to assess the odds of it happening. What are we thinking? 90%? 50%? 25%? 5%?
Is there even a 1% chance of nuclear war in the next year or five?
The only truth is that we can’t know. Claiming a 1% possibility is a fail-safe, ensuring we never let our guard down because anything is possible at any time, including a nuclear apocalypse.
We’ve survived almost eighty years after seeing the devastation of Little Boy and Fat Man. Unfortunately, it seems our elected leaders might have forgotten the horrors of nuclear bombs and are playing with fire intentionally.
If only one side had nuclear weapons, they would have flown a long time ago. The main reason no atomic nation has pushed the magical button of nuclear annihilation is that it almost certainly ensures mutual destruction.
Using nuclear weapons is effectively murder-suicide!
What is the most likely scenario after using nuclear weapons in combat?
Everyone is under the opinion that a nuclear war is the ultimate war, the end of all that we hold dear. Once we open those nuclear floodgates, all hell is unleashed.
I think they’re wrong. That’s the worst-case scenario.
While possible, it is extremely unlikely. It’s not something that happens out of the blue but after depleting all other options. How desperate must things get for any one side to be willing to destroy themselves? Pretty darn desperate!
Since mutually assured destruction is such a powerful deterrent, no one is willing to give it up unless presented with utter and total national humiliation and destruction.
The bark of atoms is a nuclear weapons superpower. The bite is useless.
They might use tactical nuclear weapons, though
These aren’t nearly as devastating or world-ending, and neither would they prompt outright irreversible reactions from nuclear powers to effectively end the world. Probably.
I suggest we talk before the first nukes tempt the nerves, but no one seems interested in talking, compromising, or negotiating. They insist on playing a game of nuclear annihilation chicken.
I believe there would be a limited reaction, not a worldwide apocalypse
Why am I so confident that unleashing tactical nukes, or even one or two proper-sized nukes released as a deterrent of last resort, wouldn’t automatically mean an all-out nuclear war with thousands of atomic rockets darkening the sky?
Let’s play out the currently most likely scenarios:
Israel attacks Iran with nuclear weapons, killing millions in an instant.
Russia attacks Ukraine with nuclear weapons and levels Kyiv, leaving nothing but a krater.
What do you think happens next?
Do you think we all jump out of our seats and go: “Yeah! I want a piece of that action! Let’s all end the world because someone released nuclear devastation on a limited scale. If thousands died, it’s only logical we join them and for billions to die for no reason whatsoever! Son, daughter, wife, brother, sister, mother, father - I’m sorry, but a bad man did a bad thing, so now you must all die because we have to punish the bad man and kill all life on the planet.”
Does that make sense?
Would that be your reaction - collective suicide?
Would you, given the power, choose to initiate a world-ending nuclear apocalypse because someone fired a nuke at someone else?
What is the most likely reaction?
I could be wrong, of course, but here’s what I think would follow:
Everybody realizes that “shit just got real.” After seeing the horrors on the ground, they will do anything in their power to stop it from escalating.
If there were retaliation, even nuclear, it would be constrained, intended to stop further bloodshed, not initiate a “no going back” situation of nuclear apocalypse. A nuke for a nuke, not an end-of-world collective barrage of silos releasing their devastating arsenal.
The worst-case scenario of a nuclear war?
The only exception from the above that I can envision is a combination of an all-out attack from one nuclear superpower at another, with the intention of utter and complete destruction, hoping for the attack to be so fast and brutal that the enemy doesn’t have time to react.
Again, it’s not impossible, just improbable. Perhaps following a devastating cyber attack crippling the enemy's defenses and retaliatory options. It makes for great storytelling in fiction, but it’s a risky strategy in real life. In this case, all bets are off!
Depending on the scale of destruction, countries directly affected would suffer millions of deaths in minutes after impact.
Radiation would cause illnesses and deaths in the following years on a much larger scale.
Food shortages after the darkening of the sky and poisoning of resources would increase that death toll spanning decades.
The rest of the world, unaffected by nuclear weapons or radiation directly, would suffer as well. They would have to carry the burden of food shortages and chaos on the international floor.
I’ve seen a few nuclear fallout scenarios, and they were fortunately less world-ending than one might think. Even if hundreds of atomic bombs fell on specific countries, it wouldn’t necessarily impact the whole world. The impact on the environment would be similar to a large volcano erupting. The world would change, but humanity would adapt and survive.
We might start collective glowing at night, but that could be useful when fighting the rat people in the underground tunnels.
Where do you want to be if nuclear war begins?
I’m sad to say it’s in the epicenter of the explosion. A quick death is preferable to life or suffering from radiation poisoning or starvation.
Alternatively, as far away as possible. Ideally, in an environment protected by natural elements and entirely self-sufficient.
So, should you be afraid of nuclear war?
No! Fear is pointless
The odds are minimal, and if it happens, there is nothing you can do to prevent or escape it. What will happen will happen, and unless you have the power to stop the nuclear war, I wouldn’t worry about it. It doesn’t benefit anyone, and it will just ruin your life.
Shouldn’t we actively warn about the dangers ahead?
If you believe your voice can influence those in power to steer this ship clear of the nuclear land mines, then by all means, do so. While it’s insane for us, normies, to worry about nuclear apocalypse, the same cannot be said of those in power.
As for the preppers among you
First, how long can you survive on what you have accumulated? Second, do you want to live in a world that follows nuclear annihilation?
Fear is the enemy
Never surrender to it! If we have to face the glowing orbs in the sky, we shall do so boldly, living happy and fulfilling lives to the very last moment. We will not allow an imaginary nuclear apocalypse to ruin our today!
“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.” - Litany Against Fear, Dune by Frank Herbert
Interested in more related content? Here you go:
OMG, We Live in the Most Horrible Times in History
10 Core Principles of Any Fear
Anxious or Depressed? Lock Yourself in Time!
Are You Afraid of Having Children Because the Future Looks Grim?
How to Face Your Fears, Calm Your Mind, and Overcome Anxiety
Are You Afraid That Artificial Intelligence Will Be the End of Humanity?
Thanks for reading. Like, share, recommend, link to, and subscribe. You know the deal with online publishing. Every little thing helps. I appreciate you!