Who would win in a war between Russia and the US? - Allen Hall
A Common Story: “There are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over.” This is nothing more than poorly crafted fiction an urban
legend. This common conclusion is not based in any factual data. It is based solely in hype, hysteria, propaganda and fear mongering.
If you take every weapon in existence today, approximately 6500 megatons between 15,000 warheads with an average yield of 433 KT,  and put a
single bomb in its own 100 square mile grid… one bomb per grid (10 miles x 10 miles), you will contain >95% of the destructive force of each bomb on
average within the grid it is in.  This means the total landmass to receive a destructive force from all the world's nuclear bombs is an area of
1.5 million square miles. Not quite half of the United States and 1/38 of the world's total land mass…. that's it!
In truth it would be far less. A higher concentration of detonations would take place over military targets and would be likely 10–30 times greater
in concentration over those areas.  If they were used in war it is unlikely more than 40% would get used even in a total war situation. So the
actual area of intense destruction in a nuclear war is somewhere between 150,000 and 300,000 square miles or 1/384 to 1/192 of the world’s land
These numbers are easily verifiable, and they are right. So many have bought into the endless rhetoric of the world shattering destructiveness and the
inevitable end of civilization scenarios that they can no longer be objective or analytical as they have put their beliefs in front of rational
thinking. I find this true even with most scientists. I challenge anyone to just do the math …it is easy.
You win wars by taking out the opposing teams ability to make war, not their population centers. The arsenals of today are just enough to cover
military objectives. There would be no wholesale war against civilians. That is just more fear mongering and Hollywood storytelling.
a lot to digest....I'm gonna go through these quora questions in more detail.
now, no two bones about it, things will/would be ugly. But the whole point of this thread is to be more accurate.
One thing I can say - Asia - China, India, Pakistan, Japan have much higher population densities. So, in a nuclear exchange, the sheer # of people
dying would be higher than these forecasts, as most people (English writing ones anyway) just think USA-Russia.
The # of dying in USA would be far less than most imagine. Many millions (Tens) would die from blasts & fallout AND social chaos, but there are 330
million in USA. Even if we said 50 - 100 million died (I just plucked that out of nowhere) in the USA before semblance of normality / order returned,
that's still over 200 million.
That puts the USA back to population level in the 1960s.
So again, a major blow, but not "total annihilation."
There are other things going on besides nuclear war, but gotta keep this question focused. Not here to explain the 3 prongs of the "Devil's trident."