What are the specific cons of nuclear war, excluding destruction and misery?
Only one reason for not having a nuclear war in this day and age….global suicide. The threshold for nuclear winter is very low. Scientists have calculated that a mere 100 megatons of yield (less than 1% of the world’s arsenals) would be enough to generate an epoch of coldness and darkness. I can’t think of anything that’s a con that’s not apart of destruction and misery. A limited nuclear exchange would cause widespread destruction and misery. A full-scall exchange would be global suicide. The W.H.O. predicted in 1982 that “1.1 billion people would be killed outright in such a nuclear war, mainly in the United States, the Soviet Union, Europe, China and Japan. An additional 1.1 billion people would suffer serious injures and radiation sickness, for which medical help would be unavailable. It thus seems possible that more than 2 billion people-almost half of all the humans on Earth-would be destroyed in the immediate aftermath of a global thermonuclear war. …
