>Wars have been steadily decreasing in frequency, and the

>>1987637
the first assertion is true, the second isn't.
We aren't even close to beeing able to wipe out ourselves. A full scale nuclear war wouldn't even be enough to bring mankind back to pre-industrial level

The first is a historical, testable, factual statement.

The second is just a wild guess, means nothing.

Can you really destroy all of the humanity with one wrong move? I am sure that even if Trump presses the red button to nuke Mexica we would be better than ever.

>>1987684
>Can you really destroy all of the humanity
All the nuclear missiles owned by USA and Russia (the rest is negligible) would be just enough to pulverize the territory of China. Which is a good start, chinks should burn, but not anywhere close to world destruction. Obviously, in case of an actual nuclear war damage would be multipled by strategic bombings and world ecenomy will collapse

>>1987714
>but not anywhere close to world destruction
This. No one is gong to bomb Africa or South America in case of full blown nuclear war. Global trade will stop, ofc, but I'm sure it wouldn't take long for Africans and South Americans to reclaim nuclear wastelands of North America and Eurasia for civilization again.

>>1987637
They're both very true. I wouldn't be surprised if Western democracies are currently at or near the peak of all civilization forever. This is the techno-utopia of the future, or at least as close as it gets, a world of internet, cheap oil, stable population, stable climate, thriving mass culture, relative peace and affluence. Enjoy it while it lasts, because it may not last the rest your lifetime.

Humans and the plants and animals humans have strong influence over compose the majority of the biosphere, so yes.

>>1987669
>Humanity is better off than it ever has been
>Testable, factual

>>1987793
>he said, shitposting with people from all over the world, instead of beeing cold and hungry and dying of smallpox

>>1987735
I don´t think that african or south american cities would be spared in a full blown nuclear war
Populations of those places would recover faster though

>>1987816
why would you bomb the cities of neutral third countries?

>>1987840
First we would have to see how "neutral" they are
Consider the cold war, they failed to form a relevant non-aligned bloc

>>1987856
yeah, but imagine, suddenly you see thousands of soviet nukes flying towards you.
I think your first priority would be to retaliate, and not to fuck up south america and africa

>>1987872
yep but consider we´re on a second strike stage
You are Russia and have been hit hard, USA is badly hurt too but you know it can dispose of Argentina and Brazil agriculture and cattle to recover, what do you do?

>>1987901
and why exactly should Argentine help US to recover, instead of filling the power vacuum?

>>1987912
I guess if they were reluctant they would be given the option to cooperate or get nuked too. Their food production capacities are too valuable in a post-nuclear world.

>>1987966
after beeing nuked and utterly destroyed, US would be in no position to strong-arm Argentine into doing anything

>>1987971
America has nukes. Lots of them.

>>1987983
not after a full scale nuclear war

>>1987971
I´m sure those things are well planned by both sides. And just a few nuke subs are enough to send a big third world country like that to the 15th century

>>1987996
This is hypothetically after the first strikes are delivered