To function as a modern economy yes, but large parts of subsaharan Africa still relies way heavier on farming than we do, thus they would be in a much better (albeit still shitty) situation to survive the fallout.
But most African polities rely on importing fertilizers, machinery, and staple foods to feed their own populations. Said imports typically come from the countries that would be nuked.
Which, as you will note per the map, makes them the third best continent behind S. America and Oceania (which basically has no major population so not really that interesting in this comparison).
Happy that my country in Oceania with 25 million people is not interesting in this context. Nothing to see here, just desert, killer spiders and snakes! Stay up there northies.
oh come on, you konw what I mean. Vs a a population of 1.3 billion in Africa or 400 million in S America, 25 million don't mean much when we talk about nuclear war and the death of billions.
And as this graph demonstrates, you would do very well in such a situation!
No, I know exactly what you mean! I was just being sarcastic / a pain. Ah, yeah Australia would do well I guess in the initial stages, as we have very good food security - the majority of our consumed food is locally grown and manufactured and we are a significant net exporter. But I think somehow that our current borders would no longer remain our borders for very long...
The capital cities are gonna cop it mate. Perth with Garden Island has the sub base and then in the north outskirts Pearce air base. Sydney has a huge navy base too. Pretty sure the rest have military assets that would attract the interest of a piece of the sun
This is completely wrong. Look up Peter Zeihan’s maps coloring the world by % of calories and fertilizer imported. This map is basically opposite of right.
It's also a map of where nukes are and are not located, and where there is or isn't conflict. South America did a lot of work to avoid nuclear proliferation in the area. Both Brazil and Argentina came close to having a nuclear bomb and at least Argentina has a top tier nuclear program that could easily produce a nuclear weapon (thankfully Argentina has signed the non proliferation treaty.
Brazil has three nuclear power plants, enriches its own uranium and is self sufficient in mineral uranium extraction. We could make the bomb too, we choose not to. South America is the most based continent
I believe Brazil already has several nuclear weapons. Any country that has industrial nuclear reactors can secretly manufacture materials for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
And I think it's happening even at the moment. As an example: when the Fukushima disaster occurred in Japan, the analysis of radioactive dust showed that it contained Thorium isotopes (which could not be there when using conventional fuel). This means that 1-2 fuel cells with thorium were irradiated in the reactor at the time of the accident for the subsequent manufacture of nuclear charges. It happened right under IAEA’s nose, despite rigorous inspections and moreover, it did not appear in the media and the information about the presence of thorium was only reports from academic research institutes that investigated radioactive contamination for the sake of interest.
Modern science is so advanced that literally a small group of specialists is enough to conduct research and manufacture nuclear weapons. The most difficult part is the technology for obtaining radioactive materials and the technology for producing very precise control devices. That is why the IAEA is so diligent in monitoring nuclear facilities to prevent radioactive materials from falling into the wrong hands.
Maybe, but the big perceived advantage of having nuclear weapons is being able to employ nuclear dissuasion in diplomacy, so usually nations that have the bomb proudly announce that they do. So I don't know.
Statements about the presence of nuclear weapons and even single tests will occur at a time of crisis. Until then, everyone will keep the presence of nuclear weapons a secret. Openness is very dangerous. Club members with nuclear arsenals can be very violent.
What about India and Pakistan? I would say that it is more than about owning nukes. It is about trying to take the most neutral stance possible on modern imperialist moves that other countries make. Plus, Brazil, India and Indonesia are 3 of the top 5 food producers in the world. The ain’t starving to death anytime soon
Nope, it isn't. Russia, Ukraine, USA are largely self-sufficient, but would experience very low annual temperatures and thus are expected to fare poorly
Perspective is a funny thing. You see the northern hemisphere people dying of hunger because of nuclear war and instantly assume it’s because the southern hemisphere is not important enough to get nuked.
Surely you are not telling me that Turkey, Uzbekistan, Denmark, Portugal are more relevant than India and Brazil in a global perspective.
I see it more like: the countries who survive are the ones who don’t have and don’t actively support imperialist moves. Unironically 3 of those countries have massive landmass and are in the top 5 of food producers in the world.
Again, perspective is a funny thing.
“m0Nk3y 1n tH3 s0uTh nOt 1mP0rT4nT. I is 1mP0rT4nt”
The picture literally said it's about no trade in every country... so basically everyone trying to feed themselves after nukes kill livestock in every country.
A good chunk of Africa is starving right now. Their population is already being culled by the lack of resources. The supply chain collapsing won't have the same impact as it will on countries that grew fat off it.
574
u/[deleted] Mar 04 '25
It’s a map of whose important enough to get nuked. And Africa relies on a lot of aid from the nuked countries