this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2023
539 points (94.3% liked)

Memes

1157 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 15 points 10 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Flimbo@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] occhionaut@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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?