If there is a partial nuclear war - what happens to $$? The "economy." Daily life?

a reply to: sraven

very well said.

a reply to: dontneedaname

Think of the affected nations whom were bombed as having serious health issues, contaminated food and water, poor if any exports due to that contamination which though through fallout becoming a global issue being regarded as more contaminated by the remaining consumer nations.

Global economic collapse followed by a slower recovery due to the fact the main targets in such a nuclear war are also currently the planets main consumer nations meaning the financial impetus they give the global economy being removed or at least curtained seriously.

Major corporations being knocked out (not a bad thing BUT?) and that leaving many of there overseas assets in unaffected nations at the mercy of the whim of those nations while at the same time leaving these subsidiaries pretty much like chickens with there heads cut off.

Followed immediately after the war by a increased ash and fallout in the sky, reduced sunlight in many areas leading to famine and disease.

It would not be like Hiroshima or Nagasaki, modern bomb's are far more powerful, if used against target populations they would cause immense damage and loss of life.

Afterwards it would be a reshuffling of the global power deck to see whom was then on top unless there was a clear winner of the contest of nukes assuming a limited nuclear exchange in which case they would emerge more powerful but also injured, it therefore also has the potential to spark other conflicts as others position themselves for power or attack the wounded bear or eagle or dragon.

It is also possible that nations such as the UK and other European powers with limited territory unlike these continent sized behemoth's of nations would pretty much be destroyed, survivors would eventually pick up the pieces but it would take many decades to recover and in that time and afterwards there children would suffer weakening the future of such nations.

Full on Nuclear Winter would only likely happen in the event of a full exchange including supposedly banned crust cracker devices (ground affect nuclear devices) and salted nukes, that would be the likely outcome of MAD gone full trigger.

But then you can pretty much kiss goodbye to our current civilization, some nations would survive but there stability would be an issue, new nations and powers and blocks would arise in the aftermath though.

Once the second nuc flys, all bets are off. The economy as we know it probably would not exist. Worthless stocks, bonds, and paper currency. The only wealth would be items of intrinsic value, that you can hold in your hand. Honestly. It may be quite refreshing.

a reply to: LABTECH767

On the plus side; godzilla movies

a reply to: dontneedaname

We are all dancing upon thin ice. Anything could occur at any given moment creating utter havoc and chaos. Imagining what-ifs is futile. Look for solid ground is my advice.

I think we'll probably see a nuclear weapon fired in our lifetime. Iran have committed to nuking Israel as soon as they have the ability, N Korea would probably nuke S Korea just to show strength given the right circumstances and there's always a chance extremists get control of some supposedly civilised nation with nuclear power, even India or Pakistan. I don't think it would lead to a full scale exchange, however. The nation or regime that launched first would be international pariahs without a single ally to call upon and be eliminated by some means, but not necessarily like-for-like considering the potential for substantial collateral damage.

originally posted by: sraven
if there was nuclear winter and people died, there would be no economy.
would not need one. dead people do not need economies

Dead people DO need economies, that why Democrats ensure the DEAD can vote....

1st pass at countries that I think would suffer at least 1 nuclear missile strike. In a China-Taiwan war.

Quad countries - Australia, USA, Japan, India vs China
China (of course)
North Korea wouldn't want to miss out on the fun.
Neither would Pakistan since India-Pakistan

Canada contributes to Taiwan Straits, so maybe 1 Canadian city, no more.

UK...

www.theguardian.com...

If spilled over into Russia-Europe...then I selected the most probable EUrope nations to me. But it's possible, they sit this one out apart from UK. Or fewer nations. No Netherlands. Maybe No Italy as well. Belgium is a target - EU.

A little more fuzzy on Russia-Europe. In theory any NATO country could be a target, in reality...I kind of doubt it. Turkey? Maybe they shouldn't be on the map.

www.thesun.co.uk...

Of course Israel - Iran could be triggered. I included Saudi Arabia, but maybe not.

a reply to: dontneedaname

If Israel in struck expect them to retaliate in extreme force, they will probably NOT hold back and use there entire arsenal against a number of nations whom they have long ago listed as enemy's should they show weakness, Syria, Iran and even Iraq as well as though they are friendly the likes of other close by nations and likely also Russia would all be attacked by Israeli nukes.

There are arguments as to how many deployment ready nukes Israel actually has at any time but expect from 50 to 200 medium scale devices to be deployed should that nation be either invaded and expecting to lose or attacked with a nuke themselves.

Remember Israel's limited territory and the danger a single nuke poses to it as well as the amplification of damage due to the dense population of that region.

This would of course cause a wider escalation not only in the region but also in the global theatre of conflict.

It is possible that a China attack upon Taiwan (up until it became a democracy Taiwan's military leaders were actually constantly drilling for a re-invasion of there lost homeland and that could have gone the other way as though smaller than the mainland forces they were of a higher qualitative nature though that leadership was nearly as oppressive as the communists on the mainland and ran there own secret police) would be limited and not then go nuclear and it is even possible that the concerned parties have tried to make certain it does not.

But there are other potential flash point's, the Kurile Islands whose control though currently held by Russia is actually seriously disputed by Japan whom regards the seizure of those islands by the Soviet Union at the end of WW2 as illegal and still regards several islands currently occupied and even settled by Russia as Sovereign and illegally occupied territory, given Japans re-armament and possible move toward nuclear (which it is even possible they have already secretly completed likely with the full knowledge and aid of the US though it would be incredibly unpopular among many within the nation given that they were the worlds first nation to have been attacked with nuclear weapons in the modern world) and the possibility that should Japan become militant they may then seize back control of these lost territory's potentially sparking conflict with Russia which may or may not be limited, it seems along way off and unlikely but remember a tiger is a tiger and give it's claws and teeth back, Japan is also very westernized but don't underestimate there national pride and what a rallying call can do to public sentiment within that nation.

Then of course there is the world's favourite flash point North Korea vs South Korea, one an impoverished nation under tyrannical rule and the other a modern thriving democracy with a successful economy (though like Taiwan it was once a military dictatorship and it is not that long ago that reporters were writing of South Korean troops smashing protesters heads flat with there jack boots so that the brains of those poor people looked like rice pudding splashed on there calves).

And then there are other regions, Ukraine is a current favourite.


Now wouldn't it be a nice world if people could just live in peace.

Anyway enough doom and gloom it may never happen and let's hope it does not, this kind of thing only happens when the aggressor thinks they can get away with it and truth be told NOBODY will be allowed to get away with using a nuclear device it is a weapon of last resort.

a reply to: ConcernedCanadian

Or if you are a fallout fan, very large portions of crab.

focustaiwan.tw...
Ireland's Senate passes resolution backing Taiwan


estonia
China Rebukes Estonian Lawmakers for Voicing Support for Taiwan
www.bloomberg.com...

China blasts France for Taiwan support
www.manilatimes.net...


Dutch House of Representatives shows support for Taiwan with passing of two resolutions
www.taiwannews.com.tw...


China taking notes. China angry.

a reply to: dontneedaname

If the assessments concerning North Korean EMP/nuclear weapons are correct, South Korea and Japan are at the most significant risk of a tactical first strike. The lack of redundancy in online infrastructure is a prominent issue that isn't discussed often enough in our societies.

But wartime circumstances might ensure that New Zealand is cut off from internet access without the use of nukes. The Chinese cutting those cables would bring the country to a standstill, but electronic devices would remain functional.

Radiation decreases by half every 7 hours.
Democrats will die at a much higher rate than Republicans.
Looters will die from lead poisoning at a very high rate.
Rural people will die at a much lower rate than city folks.

If you are from the government and want things from rural folks bring gold not worthless paper money.
Don't come into rural areas and tell the people we're from the government and were here to help and then demand things.
If you're from the government, rural people will want to know where you live..
We will want to see IDs like drivers licenses showing your home address.

In small towns with volunteer fire departments, they run things in small towns.
When i moved into a small town with a volunteer fire department, i always joined the fire department.

a reply to: dontneedaname

Anyone who believes there will be anything like a 'partial nuclear war' is seriously deluded.

The moment one nuclear warhead is launched by one of the major nuclear powers on another then the MAD scenario will be played out in full.
Very little of what passes as our civilization would be left with only a relatively small handful of survivors living what would be nothing short of a wretched subsistence level existence.

Limited nuclear exchange.
Possibly between India and Pakistan but that's it.....and even that would have devastating effects on the world as we know it.

I don't know what the answer is.
Being realistic its impossible to uninvent nuclear bombs.
Current protocols have worked for over 75 years now, do we have no option but to maintain our faith in those?
I genuinely don't know and have no real practical suggestions.

www.quora.com...

Found this QUORA question that has lots of interesting answers and related questions. Going through it now.

Lots of good stuff...most, if not all the scenarios in this 2017 question address USA-Russia. But that's not the flashpoint in my view. It's China-Taiwan. Which leads to China / North Korea / Pakistan - USA / Taiwan / Japan / Australia / India.

We see Russia-Ukraine at the moment...but not sure how far Russia-Europe is involved in the above event.


At first glance I like this detailed answer:

www.quora.com...

As an aside, I just watched an old movie - Testament. Has some interesting aspects, but pretty boring, glacially paced movie and contrived. "highly rated" on Amazon. Paid $4 for it, but you can watch for free on Kanopy - with your library card (USA). Might be worth your time to read the NEGATIVE amazon reviews. I only read a few positive on this one before watching.

www.kanopy.com...

www.quora.com...

Who would win in a war between Russia and the US? - Allen Hall

A Common Story: “There are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over.” This is nothing more than poorly crafted fiction an urban legend. This common conclusion is not based in any factual data. It is based solely in hype, hysteria, propaganda and fear mongering.

If you take every weapon in existence today, approximately 6500 megatons between 15,000 warheads with an average yield of 433 KT, [13] and put a single bomb in its own 100 square mile grid… one bomb per grid (10 miles x 10 miles), you will contain >95% of the destructive force of each bomb on average within the grid it is in. [14] This means the total landmass to receive a destructive force from all the world's nuclear bombs is an area of 1.5 million square miles. Not quite half of the United States and 1/38 of the world's total land mass…. that's it!

In truth it would be far less. A higher concentration of detonations would take place over military targets and would be likely 10–30 times greater in concentration over those areas. [15] If they were used in war it is unlikely more than 40% would get used even in a total war situation. So the actual area of intense destruction in a nuclear war is somewhere between 150,000 and 300,000 square miles or 1/384 to 1/192 of the world’s land mass.

These numbers are easily verifiable, and they are right. So many have bought into the endless rhetoric of the world shattering destructiveness and the inevitable end of civilization scenarios that they can no longer be objective or analytical as they have put their beliefs in front of rational thinking. I find this true even with most scientists. I challenge anyone to just do the math …it is easy.

You win wars by taking out the opposing teams ability to make war, not their population centers. The arsenals of today are just enough to cover military objectives. There would be no wholesale war against civilians. That is just more fear mongering and Hollywood storytelling.

---

a lot to digest....I'm gonna go through these quora questions in more detail.

now, no two bones about it, things will/would be ugly. But the whole point of this thread is to be more accurate.

One thing I can say - Asia - China, India, Pakistan, Japan have much higher population densities. So, in a nuclear exchange, the sheer # of people dying would be higher than these forecasts, as most people (English writing ones anyway) just think USA-Russia.

The # of dying in USA would be far less than most imagine. Many millions (Tens) would die from blasts & fallout AND social chaos, but there are 330 million in USA. Even if we said 50 - 100 million died (I just plucked that out of nowhere) in the USA before semblance of normality / order returned, that's still over 200 million.

That puts the USA back to population level in the 1960s.

usafacts.org...


So again, a major blow, but not "total annihilation."


There are other things going on besides nuclear war, but gotta keep this question focused. Not here to explain the 3 prongs of the "Devil's trident."

Interesting graph found on Quora. I've used OWID for COVID, but never this.

Now I know my EMOTIONAL impressions of nuclear war have been based on older data/concepts. But the game is different now.

FWIW - I have been to Hiroshima, Los Alamos Museum, Trinity nuclear testing site, Titan Missile Museum, and even old Soviet missile silos in Lithuania among other places.


Good graphics of minute man missiles. We can see average warhead is much smaller - < 1 megaton. < 500 kilotons / warhead.
minutemanmissile.com...

W78 - 350 kt 15-20x HIroshima/Nagasaki
W87 - 300-475 kt ~20-25x



--
SLBM

en.wikipedia.org...

warheads up to 475 kt

China JL-2 - some do have 1 MT warheads. hmm...

en.wikipedia.org...

'Low yield' nuclear weapon added to US submarines