Goodbye to centuries of mystery scientists discover the gene that helped people survive the Black Death, the deadliest pandemic in human history
Sea bass on the moon ESA s most unusual project to breed fish on the moon ends up feeding royal families at a French fish farm
Goodbye to the Land Cruiser as we know it Toyota unveils its first 48V hybrid model with greater efficiency and off-road power
These days, there is a greater chance of a nuclear conflict, but which nations would endure a worldwide catastrophe? It was formerly thought that nations like Canada and Mexico were the safest in the event of a nuclear accident, but a recent scientific study has disproved this theory. The study focuses on issues like ecological devastation, starvation, and the collapse of food production systems. These factors suggest that nations other than Canada and Mexico are able to sustain a functioning society for ten years following a conflict.
The true defensive strategy is based on geographic position, agricultural production, and food self-sufficiency; it has nothing to do with nuclear refuges. Let’s examine which nations would be the safest in the event of a nuclear conflict.
Risk of a nuclear war
The threat of a nuclear war has grown since the United States recently attacked nuclear facilities in Iran. Although this sentiment is not new, it is currently the primary focus of social discussion.
It goes without saying that a nuclear war would have catastrophic consequences both immediately after the attack and for years afterwards. We are discussing repercussions that would impact every part of the world, including those that weren’t specifically targeted.
Global famine
One of the biggest dangers posed by a nuclear conflict is this. According to a study by Nature Food magazine, there would be a significant interruption in the world’s food supply if, for instance, Moscow and Washington initiated a nuclear war and about 100 atomic bombs were dropped.
Imagine the smoke from the explosions obstructing the sun, causing climate change, and significantly lowering food output. The study predicts that this will result in a severe food crisis that could cause up to two-thirds of the world’s population to perish from starvation.
We must avoid the beginning of a nuclear war
Co-author of the aforementioned study and a climate scientist is Alan Robock. He discusses the study’s findings, which clearly shows that avoiding these weapons is the only long-term solution: It is possible to use nuclear bombs if they are available.As more weapons are created and dispersed among nations, there is a greater chance that new conflicts may break out.
Countries with the most probabilities to survive the attack
Two nations have a better chance than the others of having their population survive the attack, at least for ten years. These nations—Australia and Argentina—were picked as a result of studies assessing the susceptibility and capacity to recover of various nations in the event of a nuclear conflict.
Let’s examine in more depth why these nations were thought to have a higher probability of surviving a nuclear conflict.
Far from the northern hemisphere
Argentina’s and Australia’s geographical locations are crucial. Why? because Australia and Argentina are located far from the northern hemisphere, which is home to the major nuclear powers (the United States, Russia, China, or Europe). This implies that they most likely wouldn’t be the explosions’ direct targets or recipients. They would have time to react and defend themselves because of the distance.
Agricultural production
Strong agriculture production capabilities are another asset of these selected nations. Australia and Argentina currently produce vast quantities of items like wheat, which is more resilient and adaptable to harsh environments, according to Alan Robock.
We need to start alternatives to traditional agriculture
Professor of food science William Chen of Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University cautions that the psychological effects of a nuclear conflict may outweigh any immediate physical harm. Therefore, it is advised that nations begin searching for innovative alternatives to old agricultural techniques in order to ensure the safety of their food. For instance:
- Mushrooms or fungi growing.
- Interior agriculture.
- Insects protein production.
- Food based on microalgae production.
Therefore, nations must to begin considering the possibility of a nuclear conflict in the future and begin implementing new measures that will enable their citizens to withstand such an assault. Wouldn’t it be much simpler if there were no nuclear weapons, as Robock stated?
