How long would it take humanity to recover from an all out nuclear war?
There are two ideas-
- A recovery on a level where most of humanity no longer directly suffers from the consequences of the war
- A recovery on a level where humanity has reached prewar state
In both cases:
It very much depends.
Sure, you are assuming “all-out” war, which means a couple of thousand detonations, but a big factor is how ruthless and discriminate the bombing is.
Common sense says how your first targets should be the offensive capabilities of your enemy. Meaning, it’s safe to assume how the first round of bombing would be focused on nuclear silos, military facilities, air and naval ports, command centers. Second round would likely (also safe to assume) target industrial complexes and economy centers.
Indirectly, you would still have significant damage to major cities.
You see, the biggest threat after the war is certainly nuclear winter.
The intensity of nuclear winter depends on the amount of smoke ejected into the atmosphere.
If we are to assume that world leaders are rational (just for a moment), civilian targets (cities, which would produce a LOT of smoke if attacked) are NOT directly attacked.
Still, we’d be having a huge disaster. Let’s also for a moment ignore billions (probably) of dead and incapacitated people, and the total collapse of economy. Let’s just focus on the environmental consequences.
Carl Sagan and his team discussed a scenario a couple of decades ago, where 2600 nuclear weapons are detonated, including a fraction of the remaining 7600 weapons some time afterwards. This scenario assumes hundreds of cities around the world engulfed in firestorms. As a consequence, more than 150 million tons of smoke is produced.
Their team assumes a catastrophic aftermath in this scenario. Their main argument for this aftermath is the amount of smoke ejected.
But then again, they also assumed completely indiscriminate bombing.
Let’s put this as the worst case scenario, and my case above where only strategic targets are attacked as the “rational” scenario.
The worse case scenario gives us 1–3 years of temperatures below freezing all year-round. That’s…bad.
Afterwards, you’d be having probably a decade of classic-winter-like years. Still bad, but manageable. Growing food outside would be near impossible. With time, temperatures would slowly return to normal. Ozone depletion would be a serious threat to remaining living things. Luckily, humans are no longer able to further damage it, as the smoke from industry and vehicles is almost totally gone. Earth’s protective layer would eventually recover.
Only the most resilient and sturdiest of animals would survive in the wilderness. Same goes for plants.
Most of the living creatures would go extinct.
It would be something similar to dinosaur extinction event.
But there would be survivors. Flora and fauna on this Earth survived worse things, and eventually completely recovered.
I am absolutely sure that, with time, life on Earth would return to prehuman levels. I can’t say it would happen in a hundred years, or even a thousand. But it most certainly would eventually. No matter how intense nuclear war was.
Regarding the “rational” scenario, I predict a much less dire aftermath. You’d still be having nuclear winter effects.
Tambora volcano eruption in 1815 inflicted global consequences. The world experienced “year without summer”, and a lot of people died just because of the reduced food growing seasons.
My prediction is that we’d be having a similar scenario, but it would last for decades.
It would still be an extinction event, as many living creatures would fail to adapt to new environments, but on a much less dire level.
As for humanity…
Whatever the scenario, we will survive.
We are among the most resilient and adaptive living creatures on this planet.
Worst case scenario would bring back our civilization to a stone-age-level, and it would last for several decades, probably a full generation. But we will endure.
Our numbers would be drastically reduced, but we’d still stand in millions around the world.
Rational scenario still brings us back to stone age, as our economy and industry is mostly gone. Countries and states may still survive, but you’d be having totalitarian regimes everywhere. A dystopian world would emerge, where the fight for resources would truly begin.
You see, this “rational” scenario doesn’t kill nearly as much people as the worst case one. In both cases, resources are gone, most significantly food. But you’d be having a lot of angry (and hungry) people. The fight for survival would be frightening.
Probably even take more lives than the war itself.
How long to recover? Probably decades.
But it would be a cruel world. And I’m speaking for both cases.
Decide what’s best for you.
Let’s avoid them both.
Recovery to prewar levels?
-A century at best, couple of them at worst.
Recovery to levels where we are no longer directly threatened by the consequences of the war?
-A decade at best, a full generation at worst.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
I just want to take an opportunity and discuss survival in the post apocalyptic world. Especially in the worst case scenario.
Let’s discuss feudalism.
Imagine a family.
They survived all the horrors of war in a bunker. They are prepared for whatever awaits them outside. They have food, weapons, and every mean to survive and thrive.
After establishing a safe haven, they proceed exploring this new world.
In a place nearby, they encounter a lone survivor. He is very cautious, and very desperate. But also, he is weak and feeble. Years of living in the inhospitable world made him a shadow of his old self.
The family offers him food. He graciously accepts. He isn’t really used to kindness of strangers.
But no one is stupid here. The family will ask the survivor for some information. He knows a lot of stuff, and will probably ask for more food in return. And most important of all, he will deduct how this family is no ordinary folk.
He offers to be their guide. Perhaps even help the family with hunting and foraging.
A subservient relationship develops.
Over time, the family encounters several other survivors.
At their safe haven, you see a castle-like establishment. Main building is occupied by the family. Around the building you have a fence, or a wall. Near it, a makeshift house was erected for that one survivor who guards the place in exchange for food.
Several kilometers away, another survivor lives in a makeshift house. He is a hunter, and he brings his game to the family. They provide him with various goods.
A couple of survivors are good friends with the family, and live together in the main building.
Several years pass, and our “main heroes” encounter a similar establishment as their’s. A group of survivors are holed up there, having a sustainable life.
They make friends.
Another round of years pass, and we now have two friendly groups of experienced survivors. Dozens of people circle around their safe havens, providing certain goods and services, while also receiving critical aid.
In fact, these groups have become so successful, that they’ve attracted unwanted attention.
People now want a slice of their “good” life.
In response, two groups merge, and form a village of sorts.
A decade later, the world is a bit more hospitable place. The village now has a hundred of people living there. But there is a clear distinction between the inhabitants.
The family has remained dominant, having the main word in the settlement. Group that allied with them are now guard of the village, and have the second highest authority.
- That first lone survivor is a highly respected person, being tasked with overseeing other folk around.
But also, there are others who are simply there to pay in various goods and services in exchange for….other various goods and services.
Basically, you have a classic feudal pyramid.
Some distance away, another village has formed. And another…
Either by war, or simply by acts of friendship, alliances are formed.
A town has grown.
One of the advantages of the worst case scenario is (ironically) that there are not that many people around. You don’t really need all that much food. By no means it would become easy to obtain it, but still…
Even in the harshest environments, children are born.
Very few survive birth.
Still, a new generation is forming.
Our “prosperous” town now has a dozen of kids, all tutored by our awesome survivors.
Naturally, the old generation slowly starts to wither away, and there are not enough young ones to replace them.
Still, by the time that happens, the climate has almost recovered.
This new generation starts growing food outside, on the fresh air and warm sun.
With the knowledge and experience of those before them, and with the world of possibilities reopened, the new generation starts rebuilding.
Many years, even decades pass until a sustainable settlement that numbers in thousands is formed.
I just want to say this:
World was certainly a violent place throughout history. Feudalism was born in a ruthless society. But this society managed to enlighten itself. The advantage of this new generation is that they will certainly know their history. They will know how humanity rose to glory. The knowledge won’t certainly disappear, as in movies or games for dramatic purposes. Forget Mad Max or Fallout games. People are not that stupid in real world. There will always be wars, but cooperation and friendship prevails. That’s what brought us to the present level. And that’s what will serve us in the post apocalyptic world.
Imagine it’s 2019 and someone told you that a worldwide pandemic was going to start soon… A Coronavirus would spread around the world, overwhelming hospitals and causing quarantines, lockdowns, and millions of deaths
You would have thought the person was completely crazy, right?
The video below will shock you because you will be among the first to find out the truth!
If you have any dissatisfaction with my content, you can tell me here and I will fix the problem, because I care about every reader and even more so about your opinion!
Prepper1cense 