the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
Yes. Even a "limited" nuclear exchange would be catastrophic.
It may not be as bad as a worst case scenario predicts, but also, I really wouldn't want to take that chance.
Yeah. I remember reading that the knock-on effects like wildfires and cities burning would have very serious global consequences even if it was just, say, India and Pakistan lobbing a few nukes at each other. But I'm with you 100% about verifying the hypothesis. Even if the consequences aren't "that bad" I'd rather not find out. Let's keep the lid on the nuclear can of worms.
A "low level" nuclear exchange that "isn't that bad" would also be terrifying because it would show nations that they can unleash "a few" nukes and it is survivable for them. Which will lead to "hot" nuclear escalation and a worst case scenario eventually.
Totally. Imagine if Kissinger thought he could have gotten away with a few offensive nukes. Bone chilling.