Would a nuclear war ACTUALLY END humanity? Or could survivors

it would probably create a mutant race like xman

>>>/pol/

>>8724722
This is a scientific question, not a political one.

>>8724712
world war II was a nuclear war and humanity is still here, including the japanese

>>8724726
Don't be a pedant
You know exactly what he means by "nuclear war" and WWII doesn't fit that label

>>8724730
>You know exactly what he means by "nuclear war"
no i don't and neither do you

>>8724725
/k/ would be infinitely more helpful in answering this than either /pol/ or /sci/.

Short answer - no, humanity would be fine, though the participating countries would obviously be set back by a few years to a few decades, depending on how extensive the exchange was.
Most people and the media know zilch about nuclear weapons so they gobble up the claims about nuclear winter and apocalyptic destruction without any kind of critical thought.

>>8724712
Humans are to engrained in this world to be wiped out like that. We could probably kill 90% in an all out perfect scenario war where every bomb was launched and hit in the right areas. But even then, people would still be around.

File: 1488396007826.png (277KB, 400x394px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 400x394px

>>8724722
/pol/ would just say T*rks would be left unharmed by radiation
>nuke T*rkey
>0 casualties

File: 1486435639357.png (135KB, 576x481px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 576x481px

>>8724737
>i dont know so neither does anyone else
why do you even post here, brainlet

Tbh Trump should just nuke the ME before it's too late, they won't be able to retaliate, since they don't have nukes. Pakistan may try to start shit but figure out it's not worth it, and Russia will whine about American exceptionalism and human rights but they'll eventually shut up and be grateful. Finally Russia and USA willjoin forces and nuke every african urban center, fixing the world for good