Political tensions in the world have reached the stage when many start wondering whether the human civilization may survive a nuclear catastrophe. One may hear many expert opinions about post-apocalyptic topics.According to the authors of Telegram channel Mayday. Chronicles of Nose-Diving, pandemics of various deadly infections, abrupt climate change, and disasters at nuclear and chemical facilities remain most important threats to mankind, not to mention the worst scenario of a global nuclear war. As for the issue of reviving human civilization per se, researchers believe that a little more than a hundred people with an equal gender balance would be enough for humans to survive. The set of genes in descendants will allow the new human civilisation to survive and develop (the example of the Maori is indicative here).One should also take into account the offensive of nature. If urban development is not supported by life support systems, nature will take its toll very quickly.Plants will take over all ruins in just a few years, like it happened in Abkhazia. For example, the Tkuarchal regional power plant in Abkhazia used to be a state regional power plant that supplied energy to the industrial city of Tkuarchal and its environs. It was built in the 1950s and was the main consumer of coal mined from Tkuarchal.Later, in the late 1980s, the regional power station switched to natural gas. During the 1992-1993 Georgian-Abkhaz war, it was demolished, and still remains in deplorable condition beyond repairs. People will survive and find something to do. Villagers will find it easier to survive because they will be able to return to farming, agriculture and cattle breeding. They will need primitive agricultural tools to ensure the survival of villages. The main problem will be the preservation and revival of scientific knowledge. Gadgets and appliances, like other technologically complex products that require advanced production, cannot be reproduced from scratch. The people themselves will be busy with completely different problems. Descendants of scientists and professors, forced to engage in hunting and gathering, are unlikely to be able to convey their knowledge about the structure of the solar system to their descendants. One needs to think about such a development of events before the very fact of the end of the world. Otherwise, the world will plunge into another stone age.Analysts of the "Older than Edda" project believe that the possible replenishment of the nuclear club does not seem to be something unprecedented. Technically, a third of UN member states are capable of creating a nuclear bomb. It is more difficult to develop vehicles to deliver nuclear bombs, but there is nothing particularly complicated in the very creation of a nuclear weapon.In fact, the only thing that protects us from the mass production of weapons of the Apocalypse is the dilapidating system of the post-war world order and the hegemony of the United States, which has been rapidly losing its relevance lately.

Even a relatively small regional nuclear war could trigger global cooling, damage the ozone layer and cause droughts for more than a decade.

The Global Times is published by the People's Daily, the official newspaper of China's ruling Communist Party. The party has been known to float ideas and guide public sentiments via the Global Times, which tends to take a nationalistic stance on issues involving other countries.

BEIJING: China should expand its stock of nuclear warheads to 1,000 soon, Global Times editor-in-chief Hu Xijin said on Friday, even as US President Donald Trump repeats his call for China to join an...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

BEIJING: China should expand its stock of nuclear warheads to 1,000 soon, Global Times editor-in-chief Hu Xijin said on Friday, even as US President Donald Trump repeats his call for China to join an arms control treaty, foreign media reported.The Global Times is published by the People’s...

BEIJING: China should expand its stock of nuclear warheads to 1,000 soon, Global Times editor-in-chief Hu Xijin said on Friday, even as US President Donald Trump repeats his call for China to join an arms control treaty, foreign media reported.The Global Times is published by the People’s...

Ironbark is one of 2020’s anticipated movies. Benedict Cumberbatch plays the MI6 handler of a Russian spy who may have helped prevent nuclear war

Jan 28, 2020

In the unintuitive world of nuclear weapons strategy, it’s often difficult to identify which decisions can serve to decrease the risk of a devastating nuclear conflict and which might instead increase it. Such complexity stems from the very foundation of the field: Nuclear weapons are widely seen as bombs built never to be used. Historically, granular—even seemingly mundane—decisions about force structure, research efforts, or communicated strategy have confounded planners, sometimes causing the opposite of the intended effect.

Jan 28, 2020

In the unintuitive world of nuclear weapons strategy, it’s often difficult to identify which decisions can serve to decrease the risk of a devastating nuclear conflict and which might instead increase it. Such complexity stems from the very foundation of the field: Nuclear weapons are widely seen as bombs built never to be used. Historically, granular—even seemingly mundane—decisions about force structure, research efforts, or communicated strategy have confounded planners, sometimes causing the opposite of the intended effect.

Aug 6, 2019

Former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz and former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn argue in a new Foreign Affairs article that the threat of nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. is higher now than at any point since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Jan 28, 2020

In the unintuitive world of nuclear weapons strategy, it’s often difficult to identify which decisions can serve to decrease the risk of a devastating nuclear conflict and which might instead increase it. Such complexity stems from the very foundation of the field: Nuclear weapons are widely seen as bombs built never to be used. Historically, granular—even seemingly mundane—decisions about force structure, research efforts, or communicated strategy have confounded planners, sometimes causing the opposite of the intended effect.

Jan 28, 2020

In the unintuitive world of nuclear weapons strategy, it’s often difficult to identify which decisions can serve to decrease the risk of a devastating nuclear conflict and which might instead increase it. Such complexity stems from the very foundation of the field: Nuclear weapons are widely seen as bombs built never to be used. Historically, granular—even seemingly mundane—decisions about force structure, research efforts, or communicated strategy have confounded planners, sometimes causing the opposite of the intended effect.

Jan 28, 2020

In the unintuitive world of nuclear weapons strategy, it’s often difficult to identify which decisions can serve to decrease the risk of a devastating nuclear conflict and which might instead increase it. Such complexity stems from the very foundation of the field: Nuclear weapons are widely seen as bombs built never to be used. Historically, granular—even seemingly mundane—decisions about force structure, research efforts, or communicated strategy have confounded planners, sometimes causing the opposite of the intended effect.

Jan 28, 2020

In the unintuitive world of nuclear weapons strategy, it’s often difficult to identify which decisions can serve to decrease the risk of a devastating nuclear conflict and which might instead increase it. Such complexity stems from the very foundation of the field: Nuclear weapons are widely seen as bombs built never to be used. Historically, granular—even seemingly mundane—decisions about force structure, research efforts, or communicated strategy have confounded planners, sometimes causing the opposite of the intended effect.

Jan 28, 2020

In the unintuitive world of nuclear weapons strategy, it’s often difficult to identify which decisions can serve to decrease the risk of a devastating nuclear conflict and which might instead increase it. Such complexity stems from the very foundation of the field: Nuclear weapons are widely seen as bombs built never to be used. Historically, granular—even seemingly mundane—decisions about force structure, research efforts, or communicated strategy have confounded planners, sometimes causing the opposite of the intended effect.

Jan 28, 2020

In the unintuitive world of nuclear weapons strategy, it’s often difficult to identify which decisions can serve to decrease the risk of a devastating nuclear conflict and which might instead increase it. Such complexity stems from the very foundation of the field: Nuclear weapons are widely seen as bombs built never to be used. Historically, granular—even seemingly mundane—decisions about force structure, research efforts, or communicated strategy have confounded planners, sometimes causing the opposite of the intended effect.

Jan 28, 2020

In the unintuitive world of nuclear weapons strategy, it’s often difficult to identify which decisions can serve to decrease the risk of a devastating nuclear conflict and which might instead increase it. Such complexity stems from the very foundation of the field: Nuclear weapons are widely seen as bombs built never to be used. Historically, granular—even seemingly mundane—decisions about force structure, research efforts, or communicated strategy have confounded planners, sometimes causing the opposite of the intended effect.

Jan 28, 2020

In the unintuitive world of nuclear weapons strategy, it’s often difficult to identify which decisions can serve to decrease the risk of a devastating nuclear conflict and which might instead increase it. Such complexity stems from the very foundation of the field: Nuclear weapons are widely seen as bombs built never to be used. Historically, granular—even seemingly mundane—decisions about force structure, research efforts, or communicated strategy have confounded planners, sometimes causing the opposite of the intended effect.

Jan 28, 2020

In the unintuitive world of nuclear weapons strategy, it’s often difficult to identify which decisions can serve to decrease the risk of a devastating nuclear conflict and which might instead increase it. Such complexity stems from the very foundation of the field: Nuclear weapons are widely seen as bombs built never to be used. Historically, granular—even seemingly mundane—decisions about force structure, research efforts, or communicated strategy have confounded planners, sometimes causing the opposite of the intended effect.

Most of us alive today owe a debt to those who avoided nuclear war in years past, and sadly, there were many occasions when that was necessary.

A new research has revealed that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan could, over the span of less than a week, kill 50-125 million people--more than

A mechanical engineer explains that that in the event of a nuclear winter, when the sun is blocked by smoke, humans could survive on crops that did not need much light like mushrooms and seaweed.

As 'limited war' doctrine evolves to 'limited nuclear war', the strategic necessities as well as their implications for the polity must be repeatedly examined, says Firdaus Ahmed.