According to a new study, five billion people would die if there is Russia-US war. Writes Drago Bosnic
When talking about nuclear conflict, generals, wargamers, strategists and military experts usually focus on the immediate effects of a nuclear exchange, such as the number of people killed in the initial blasts, megalopolises leveled to the ground, etc. What most people fail to pay attention to is the longer-term aftermath of a nuclear war. Such a conflict carries certain consequences which are in many ways even worse than the actual shooting war.
One of those consequences is connected to the near-total collapse of global supply chains, especially those concerning food. With the majority of the global population not producing any agricultural goods, food supply collapse would have a terrifyingly detrimental effect on most people on the planet, causing widespread hunger and the ensuing chaos which would end the world as we know it, most likely forever.
Scientists at Rutgers University projected the amount of soot that would be thrust into the Earth’s atmosphere in a variety of nuclear war scenarios, from smaller exchanges between India and Pakistan to a full-blown war between Russia and the United States. A relatively modest and localized Indo-Pakistani war would slash the world’s average caloric output by 7% within the first five years – bigger than any disruption humanity has faced thus far, ever. “Even for a regional nuclear war, large parts of the world may suffer famine,” the study’s authors claim.
On the other hand, a possible Russia-US nuclear war would almost completely devastate global food production, reducing it by at least 90% in only three to four years after the actual shooting would cease, the researchers claim. At least 75% of the global population would perish in just two years.
In addition to collapsing crop yields, the Rutgers University model tried to account for export restrictions, as well as mitigation efforts such as giving humans livestock feed to eat. As devastating a picture as the study presents, it’s understated. “The ozone layer would be destroyed by the heating of the stratosphere, producing more ultraviolet radiation at the surface, and we need to understand that impact on food supplies,” Rutgers assistant research professor Lili Zia told Sky News. Researchers also didn’t factor in changes in fertilizer and food supplies, which would be substantial.
Noting that crises “with nuclear undertones are festering,” earlier this month, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that mankind is “just one misunderstanding away from nuclear annihilation.” In addition to Russia, US imperialist belligerence is also heightening tensions with other nuclear powers, such as China. Back in June, The New York Times reported:
“Last summer, hundreds of new missile silos began appearing in the Chinese desert. The Pentagon declared that Beijing, which had long said it needed only a ‘minimum deterrent,’ was moving to build an arsenal of ‘at least’ 1,000 nuclear arms by 2030.”
The issue at hand is that the political West, particularly the US, can’t seem (or doesn’t want) to find an off-ramp. Just as tensions between Washington DC and Beijing were starting to die down after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s controversial visit to China’s breakaway province of Taiwan, an unannounced delegation of five more US legislators arrived in Taipei on Sunday. The bellicose move provoked even more anger in Beijing, resulting in another round of military drills near Taiwan.
Against the Rutgers University study’s generally horrific backdrop, one country stood out as faring far better than others – Australia’s caloric output showed either only small reductions or even a slight increase. Still, the researchers found the Land Down Under would be flooded with refugees from Asia, which would inevitably lead to its collapse. The study is considered in-depth, but it still doesn’t take into account all the possible consequences of a global nuclear exchange.
The world certainly needs to work together to prevent this gloomy scenario from ever becoming a reality. However, the world is faced with incessant escalatory actions and aggression coming from the political West, which is starting wars all across the globe, in addition to economic and other forms of pressure and coercion used against any “non-compliant fence sitters“, as approximately 80% of the world was described by the political West’s leadership.
Any attempt to appease the US belligerent thalassocracy has been proven futile, even counterproductive, as the political West sees such actions as a form of weakness. It is precisely this viewpoint that is responsible for nearly all global security risks. Unfortunately, at present, there is no evidence to believe such forces exist in Western establishments.
Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst.
