560
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 15 points 10 months ago

To be fair, people and airplanes are very bad for the environment.

I wouldn't be surprised if a tactical nuke was a net positive for the environment.

[-] lugal@lemmy.ml 15 points 10 months ago

A nuke destroys whole ecosystems...

[-] hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net 12 points 10 months ago

Chernobyl is doing pretty well now that it's completely uninhabitable by humans...

[-] RisingSwell@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Plenty of things will survive it, and the removal of the humans in the area may be a net positive.

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

So do we... at least the nuke stops killing new things after a bit.

[-] occhionaut@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago
[-] frezik@midwest.social 7 points 10 months ago

Few months/years. The radioactive isotopes created in the explosion have a short half life. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today.

[-] lugal@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today.

That contradicts the whole point that a nuke will destroy humans but leave the environment intact. A bomb of any kind destroys ecosystems. If humans reclaim the cities, it's not a "net positive" for the environment, despite the cynicism that's in the statement.

"Land back" is a much better approach since land under indigenous jurisdiction has much more biodiversity than average and especially than bombed land.

[-] fox2263@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Perhaps 1 minute?

[-] Flimbo@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2023
560 points (94.6% liked)

Memes

1182 readers
51 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS