this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
302 points (98.4% liked)

World News

55321 readers
3294 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

My point was, if he throws enough nukes at Iran to kill 90 million people, we’re all going down together.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (3 children)

That's not how radiation spreads. It will be bad for the surrounding countries, but modern bombs were designed to have lower radiation. Mostly so troops can go and occupy shortly afterwards. Plus the mountainous geography of Iran will contain a lot of the radiation.

Then there's the question do you have to kill all 90 million? If they destroyed all cities over 100,000 that effectively ends the society overnight. It's not the full 90 million, but there's nothing left to rebuild with.

That alone limits the number of bombs dropped.

Plus we're still forgetting that a deranged lunatic is in charge.

[–] GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

Su;pposing they do that, Iran still has missile launchers and missile production in hardened underground bunkers. They won't get them all. As soon as the nukes go off, and for quite a while after, the missiles will continue to strike at every target Iran has been holding out on: desalination plants and oil/gas production facilities. Israel and the gulf states will be destroyed.

A plurality of the world's oil and half the world's fertilizer comes from the middle east so we will have a global depression and a global famine. We will all go down together.

[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That's not how radiation spreads but that sounds like a good way to trigger some mutually assured destruction from Iran's allies

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Radiation typically spreads through weather as its lifted into the atmosphere. Mountains notably break-up and can contain weather fronts. It will also inhibit the aresolization of radioactive dust.

Look into how mountains impact weather and the movement of air. I'm not claiming it will 100% contain radiation spread but it will help limit it.

Remember it is a function of time as radiation naturally decays over time. This isn't Chernobyl, nukes are designed around isotopes that degrade faster.

But yeah Pakistan and Russia would likely feel the effects to some degree. Is Saudi Arabia a nuclear state? They would feel it too.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I’m not saying this is unlikely, I just think he’s blood drunk enough to do it. Our understanding of the effects of dozens of modern nuclear bombs on an urban center is theoretical, thankfully, but even with Iran's geography, it’s going to cause huge problems with oil production, causing downstream food distribution issues etc.

I guess it depends on your definition of society- they wouldn’t have a functioning government for a while, but the people surviving would still be Iranian and depending on whether they’re Kurdish, Persian, or other, might still have loyalty to the idea of an Iranian state.

I don’t think you can do enough damage to the people that there’s no Iranian (or Persian) state in 100 years without damaging the rest of the world irreparably. It’s not 100% clear what the death of a civilization entails, but it feels closer to wiping out the culture to me than destroying the big cities.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I guess it depends on your definition of society- they wouldn’t have a functioning government for a while, but the people surviving would still be Iranian and depending on whether they’re Kurdish, Persian, or other, might still have loyalty to the idea of an Iranian state.

Okay this one is fun and much more my area of expertise. You're getting at the core because it is something that is very difficult to determine. The Roman Empire is a great example, we can talk about just the west for now. Roman Britain was abandoned by the Roman's, and yet archaeological evidence shows that they still tried to live like Romans or at least the elites did. Historical records show a clear point at which the Roman Empire left, but when did the elites and people stop considering themselves Roman? They did eventually stop, and that was due to being cut-off from the empire.

Then you can look at the Bronze age collapse where whole civilizations just ceased to exist. Certainly the people persisted, but few states survived in tact. People still lived their but their civilizations ceased. They spoke the same languages still, but many cities across the Mediterranean region stop inhabited. By the time written record returned new states had formed and material culture changed. We know logically the people themselves existed in continuity but their societies ceased.

Maybe this is getting to into the weeds and not appropriate here, but this is my field and I've dedicated a lot of time to it. So the short answer is it is nearly impossible to draw a line, but societies do collapse even when the people persist

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

No, it is an interesting question. I suspect that with such an old culture, it would probably stick around longer than the Roman one did in Britain. Maybe it would be more like the Roman culture in Germany or maybe it would be entirely unique.

Of course, to your point that it’s not a hard and fast line, I’ve seen the argument that the Roman Empire still exists in Turkey or Russia. I don’t agree, but I can see what they’re getting at.