> Without fossil fuel subsidies for agriculture mass starvation is certain.

Without fossile fuels for agriculture, starvation is certain. Without fossile fuel subsidies, we'd just pay a bit more for food and slightly less for other things.

And possibly not pay more for food either, given that there are often prices floors or other similar things. Remember that we usually have a vast surplus of food in the US.

The govt at one point was running massive warehouses to store cheese, as a way to keep up milk prices. This is the origin of “government cheese.”

> government cheese

TIL.

See also: council juice

Many people in my country are already paying around half of their earnings for food. You can't really go much above that before dying of starvation.

Or substantial social changes. Rents and other costs would presumably need to change if this affected a majority? Edit: what I’m pointing to is that hunger is often in the context of sufficiency.

Don't forget the fact that a few nations export massive surpluses of food. If the global trade chain is disrupted, their customers simply won't have enough food to eat.

Most famines in the last 100 years were at least partially caused by an inability to supply food from neighboring or just slightly more distant regions.

Let's not pretend the food production subsidies are there for some kind of altruistic reasons. They're mostly there because of lobbyism.

There are also people who say that the overproduction of food in EU and US causes underproduction of food in poorer countries, making them less self sufficient and more sensitive to price increases and supply chain disruptions.

I believe the intent was to say that Fertilizers made from Fossile Fuels subsidize the Nutrients in the ground. That is, the ground itself cannot support the amount of food we grow, unless we, the humans, subsidise the ground with fertilizers.

This was a reference to energy system subsidies, not financial. Diesel for combines or natural gas for fertilizer.

On the plus(?) side, there will be plenty of remaining fertilizers in stock to grow food to feed the now much smaller population for a good while.

> This would spare us exposure to subsequent famine and the loss of things like acetaminophen and central heating, not to mention civil society

Obviously MAD has changed things, but Hiroshima was back to normal in about 2 years. Power was restored in just a few days for example.

https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/askexpert/recovery...

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/18/story-of-citi...

It's... Not even comparable. That bomb is a quaint toy compared to modern nuclear arsenal, and of course nobody would be launching one or two nukes today because it isn't 1945. Mass starvation, disease, loss of key infrastructure and any sort of industrial capacity would await those "lucky" to survive initial blasts.

I'm not as convinced nuclear winter is a scare theory either, I think it's hard to say, but it frankly doesn't even have to factor in the slightest.

There's a difference between destroying one city with a relatively small bomb and destroying most cities and industrial infrastructure with relatively big bombs - including multiple hits on the biggest targets.

I don’t anticipate calamity, nor do I prepare for one. But I’ve explored it as an experiment.

My original plan was to see what happens and make a go of it, but to be prepared to take the quick way out if it becomes too horrifying.

But now I have kids and I’m out of ideas. Maybe something about fleeing to my cottage where there’s fewer people and more nature.

Its funny how much having kids changes the equation. Back when I was single I borderline welcomed the apocalypse. Now thinking of a breakdown in civil society concerns me greatly.

That's why older people cannot stand with young people asking for "no borders", "destroy the system", etc.. Because they have a lot at stake.

"Tis a fearful thing to love what death can touch."

Why do you call nuclear winter a "scare-theory"?

The short-term impact of a major nuclear exchange is fairly well supported by science. Nuclear explosions, particularly thermonuclear explosions, are powerful enough to propel fine particulate matter high enough into the atmosphere that no rain can wash it back to the ground. Unlike smoke from a forest fire, it will persist in the atmosphere for decades and spread globally, dimming the sun and negatively impacting global temperatures and insolation across the planet. That means crop failures for everyone, not just the combatants.

A nuclear first-strike that successfully wipes out the enemy's ability to retaliate will likely still lead to global starvation for decades. While scary, this does make it less likely for a major nuclear power to ever use such a first strike. Even if you win, you lose.

There's very much a debate about the assumptions that went into the original nuclear winter work. Cities today have a lot more steel and concrete, and it's not clear if the heat necessary for high altitude plumes would form. AFAIK no one has definitively settled the matter, but it is something think tanks publish papers on occasionally.

> AFAIK no one has definitively settled the matter

I think we can be confident that the really definitive work on this subject hasn't happened yet -- thank heaven.

This is not without controversy (1), and as I understand the expected cause is not from the nuclear explosions but the fires caused by the bombs such as standard forest fires.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_d...

Aerosols from very large forest fires do reach the stratosphere and linger for months or years and have short-term climate impact. Hard to imagine much of the northern hemisphere set ablaze by the blasts without there being such an impact.

I wish you were right, but autocratic leaders tend to ignore scientific warnings

I'm not sure why you needed to quantify autocratic. From what I have seen of democratic leaders, scientific warnings tend to enter their decision-making only when convenient.

“Even if you win, you lose.”

AKA The Putin Way.

The soot from fires can actually be quite damaging globally. Here's a paper from 2020 that used state of the art atmospheric and crop models to look at the effects of the firestorms that might arise if India and Pakistan exchanged 100 nukes (about 1/3 of their arsenals) each about the size of the bomb used on Hiroshima directed at each other's major population centers.

Here's a blog article about it [2].

Here's the abstract:

> A limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan could ignite fires large enough to emit more than 5 Tg of soot into the stratosphere. Climate model simulations have shown severe resulting climate perturbations with declines in global mean temperature by 1.8 °C and precipitation by 8%, for at least 5 y. Here we evaluate impacts for the global food system. Six harmonized state-of-the-art crop models show that global caloric production from maize, wheat, rice, and soybean falls by 13 (±1)%, 11 (±8)%, 3 (±5)%, and 17 (±2)% over 5 y. Total single-year losses of 12 (±4)% quadruple the largest observed historical anomaly and exceed impacts caused by historic droughts and volcanic eruptions. Colder temperatures drive losses more than changes in precipitation and solar radiation, leading to strongest impacts in temperate regions poleward of 30°N, including the United States, Europe, and China for 10 to 15 y. Integrated food trade network analyses show that domestic reserves and global trade can largely buffer the production anomaly in the first year. Persistent multiyear losses, however, would constrain domestic food availability and propagate to the Global South, especially to food-insecure countries. By year 5, maize and wheat availability would decrease by 13% globally and by more than 20% in 71 countries with a cumulative population of 1.3 billion people. In view of increasing instability in South Asia, this study shows that a regional conflict using <1% of the worldwide nuclear arsenal could have adverse consequences for global food security unmatched in modern history.

[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1919049117

[2] https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/03/16/even-limited-in...

>While scary, this does make it less likely for a major nuclear power to ever use such a first strike. Even if you win, you lose.

Your conclusion doesn't follow. You're assuming that national leaders are rational: Putin's actions in Ukraine show that this is simply not something we can count on.

Personally, I think it's highly likely we're going to experience a major nuclear exchange in the next few decades or less, with all the horrors (including global starvation) that entails. It's apparent to me that humans are simply too stupid to keep a global society running without destroying themselves.

>less likely Before both world wars there were many who thought that war between modern powers could never happen because it was 'too dreadful'. That is, the leaders involved would avoid war. Well, we're witnesses latelu to that leaders do choose war.

I call it a scare-theory because there is meaningful debate about it and its main point, famine is already achieved by things that we know will occur. In a no BS nuclear exchange the hydrocarbons industry will cease to exist. This means no diesel for combines, no mass production of fertilizer, no power to keep fans on to cool broiler chickens. The clock on food production goes back to 1750-1800 for some time.

An available calorie reduction this fast means famine, nuclear winter or not. I think tangible consequences like this helps normal people to understand the risks of nuclear war more effectively than trying to explain nuclear winter.

Fossil fuels is one thing. Synthetic fertilizers are another. Without them, it's often impossible to grow large amounts of crops on the available land.

Even a relatively small, compared to a global nuclear exchange, war in Ukraine sent ripples across the foods markets, because the war affected some noticeable amounts of wheat grown in the world, of fertilizers produced in the world, and of natural gas powering fertilizer production elsewhere in Europe.

I wonder how many people in zombie apocalypse (of a viral kind) would just infect themselves voluntarily to avoid getting chewed by the horde of zombies.

> I wonder how many people in zombie apocalypse (of a viral kind) would just infect themselves voluntarily to avoid getting chewed by the horde of zombies.

Probably very few. Infecting yourself is pretty much an equivalent of killing yourself. Except in movies they often make it look like an extremely painful, prolonged, and torturous way of doing so. But I imagine quite many will resort to other methods of accomplishing the same end-result.

I had a conversation with my wife about this. For context, I mostly agree with you, however this is something you and a spouse should agree on and have a plan for. We have two young girls, so there’s that. Additional context: my wife is Jewish by birth.

Her reaction was immediate and unequivocal: we are going to do everything we possibly can to survive.

I guess generations of natural selection on a genetically isolated population really -does- matter!

I am not sure how to tease "genetic" and "cultural" components apart in such cases. No one is, that is why the field of studying human behavior is such a politicized mess.

> loss of things like acetaminophen and central heating

Famine I'll give you, but needing to tough out headaches without Tylenol and wear a coat or put wood in the fireplace inside your cabin is hilariously mild as post apocalyptic hardships go. Our insanely sheltered and luxurious modern world hasn't been around for long, my dad grew up without electricity or indoor water(poor rural TX was a couple decades behind in infrastructure) and many people's grandparents will remember growing up in similar conditions they were perfectly happy in.

Your sense of humor is quite moist.

> My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately

Amen to that. With a family with small kids, I can only hope that we don't even realise what is happening and die instantly.

When COVID was new and we were deep in lockdown and there was no vaccine in sight, there was a definite feeling of "will the world ever be like it was again? Is everything we knew irreversibly changed forever?". It was a worrying feeling. I can only imagine how depressing and frankly terrifying it must feel to know that life as you knew it was over (and it will never "go back to normal"), and you and your kids are now going to live in some sort of hellscape and probably die of some "trivial" injury or accident, if you don't starve or get murdered first.

>> My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately

> Amen to that. With a family with small kids, I can only hope that we don't even realise what is happening and die instantly.

You probably won't, though, unless you deliberately decide stay very close to a high-value target at all times. IIRC, the casualty estimates in NukeMap (https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) show large amounts of the population would survive the initial blasts.

Have fun dealing with the global starvation that happens later.

No one talks about fun here, but it is something different wanting to go on despise hardships vs. giving all up (and the people dependant on you).

> Have fun dealing with the global starvation that happens later.

My point is: most of the people wishing they'd die instantly will probably have that "fun," too, unless they have weird habits meant to maximize that possibility that and/or a solid suicide plan (e.g. running around with a concealed-carry pistol).

> acetaminophen

Wow, never read about this before. I see that it equates to Paracetamol. You mean that we would run out of that medicine? And if so, why is that? Happy if you could provide an explanation (I have no medical background, mind you).

>> My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately. This would spare us exposure to subsequent famine and the loss of things like acetaminophen and central heating, not to mention civil society.

> Wow, never read about this before. I see that it equates to Paracetamol. You mean that we would run out of that medicine? And if so, why is that? Happy if you could provide an explanation (I have no medical background, mind you).

Not the op, but by "acetaminophen and central heating" he meant modern comforts and conveniences would go away.

Acetominophen is something we can do without. There are better analgesics available that don't destroy your liver.

My sincere hope for my family is that weather patterns are 'nice' and we survive without significant fallout exposure. It's not as unlikely as it sounds, depending on where you are when the bombs fall.

Beyond that things will not really be that bad. Society maintains continuity even through insane events like the black death or cities being bombed into ruins. I think this is because humans are socialized for a very long time, and have very little experience living through apocalypses, and have a hard time accepting the inevitability of their own deaths. Society doesn't break down during mass starvation even.

Speaking of mass starvation and lack of clean water, that will be how most people who survive about 3 days post nuclear war will die. This is easily avoidable, water filtration/sanitization solutions are extremely cheap, or even free if you have a bucket and some sand. Storing 1 year of calories takes so little space and is so cheap it isn't even a consideration.

Mass starvation will not be a problem in the long run because it will be a huge problem much sooner. People will starve in the 2 months post event because of the temporary breakdown in logistics. After 6 months trains will be running again and there will be plenty of food, and no cities full of people to eat it.

> Storing 1 year of calories takes so little space and is so cheap it isn't even a consideration.

Please explain. My gut feel intuition is that you have to sacrifice at least a typical American closet's worth of space to do that.

A 50 lb bag of rice would feed you for 50 days and you can fit about 8 of them in a grocery store cart.

> A 50 lb bag of rice would feed you for 50 days and you can fit about 8 of them in a grocery store cart.

So that would be like 1/4 of a US closet for one person? I know rice will get bugs if you don't eat it in a reasonable amount of time, so that would be a concern.

> Beyond that things will not really be that bad.

Apart from a gigantic global food crisis for at least a decade - see this comment for just a "small" nuclear war, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34448255 - and the disruption of the supply chain that makes what happend during COVID look like nothing at all happened there? Which means you can also forget about a lot of daily necessities like lots of chemicals and medicines, even if you yourself don't use them directly.

Good luck going into forests trying to get enough wood - together with tens of millions of other people from around you. Never mind food, after the first year, which can probably be covered from the reserves. Asia and Africa will be quite busy dealing with a large population they can't feed any more, anybody who can attempting to flee and they won't take "no" for an answer at the borders.

> After 6 months trains will be running again and there will be plenty of food,

How, magic? (see linked comment and the study there, and remember that's only a "small" nuclear war they are talking about there)

.

[silent sigh] Why am I even participating in this kind of discussion... I guess it's early morning and I'm procrastinating.

Again, you only need enough food to feed the people who are still alive. You don't need international supply chains to grow food. In fact, here in the US we have far more food than we need, not exporting it will mean we have an absolute glut. The rest of the world will lose access to that, but that doesn't effect me.

Enough wood? I live in a forest.

Tens of millions... Sorry, this state has 50 people per square mile. There aren't 10 million people within a 100 mile radius of me.

Supply chain? They didn't have an international supply chain 100 years ago. They barely had one 50 years ago. The world will be fine without one for awhile.

You are just not correct on any level here. People were trading and able to survive perfectly fine and even thrive 2000 years ago, with iron age technology and not much of that. 1 year after a nuclear war people would be rebuilding, 10 years after and day to day life will be very much like it was before the war.

Here is a map of the amount of rail in the Soviet Union in the 20th century. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Ra... You can see that they went from basically 0 rail to a massive amount of rail in 20 years. How did they do this without a global supply chain and while fighting 2 world wars? It turns out people are more than capable of addressing problems even under trying circumstances. They don't just say "supply chain disruption!" and give up and lay down and cry.

> How did they do this without a global supply chain and while fighting 2 world wars?

Apparently by working hundreds of thousands of gulag prisoners to death:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-63332...

Which we won't have to do to just repair the existing railroads. My point is if they can build railroads with almost no industry and no `international supply chains` then we can get the already working rail system started again, no?

PS: even in more humane phases of the Soviet Union I doubt very much that self-sufficiency had worked. For instance large infrastructure projects, like the Baikal-Amur railway or the Drushba pipeline were built with massive support from all Eastern Bloc countries, not just financially but by sending entire construction teams over (I remember well the propaganda campaigns for this in Eastern Germany).

The VAZ factories were built by the Italians, and the early Shiguli/Lada car models were phased out Fiat models.

The MiG-15 prototypes famously flew with English jet engines.

The Tu-95 turboprop engines have been designed by Germans.

Etc etc... my point being that self-sufficiency doesn't work in the modern world (unless the people are content with living like medieval peasants).

> Supply chain? They didn't have an international supply chain 100 years ago. They barely had one 50 years ago. The world will be fine without one for awhile.

Yes, because they used to have local factories and mines that they built up over decades. Then as globalization and direct international investments were encouraged instead of trade, factories and mines were closed down and production moved to China/India/S Korea/Japan/Taiwan etc. Going to the point that cloth masks couldn't be produced in any significant numbers in the USA or Europe when a pandemic hit.

Oh no, no acetaminophen and central heating! Guess I'll just die!

In all seriousness - even if you sincerely plan to commit suicide (and take your family with you?) if life gets harder, why use the nuclear attack itself to do it? Why close off options? Why not attempt to survive, and reassess afterwards if you really think life still isn't worth living?

My dude, if you are among the lucky few who survive the initial filter of starvation, disease and mass violence following a nuclear conflict I wish you the best leading your band of raiders across the Great Plains or Central Valley feasting on the scraps of civilization and eventually dying of dysentery, typhus, scarlet fever or simple exposure.

I am not here for that lifestyle.

Again, if you're going to commit suicide, why use the nuclear attack itself to do it? Why not wait and see if this apocalyptic vision of yours actually comes true? If it does, it won't be difficult to commit suicide at that point, you won't have lost anything. And if it doesn't, you'll be glad you lived.

Plus, yaknow, your wife/kids/dog/$DEPENDENTS might feel differently.

* * *

The suicide part is deliberately avoiding actions that would increase your chances of survival because, and I quote, "My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately".

> My dude, if you are among the lucky few who survive the initial filter of starvation, disease and mass violence following a nuclear conflict I wish you the best leading your band of raiders across the Great Plains or Central Valley feasting on the scraps of civilization and eventually dying of dysentery, typhus, scarlet fever or simple exposure.

That sounds like a fantasy over-"informed" by fiction. Might just as well be, that after that initial filter, most people just end up living in a village and farming like it's 1700.

Bands of raiders were a semi-regular element of 1700 agrarian lifestyles on every continent!