Study a bit of history, play around with blast radius/fallout calculators for nuclear weapons, look at some nuclear test footage and then check the news.
Sure, however I'd like to defend Strider's point a moment ago, it doesn't do anyone much good to be paralyzed with a half century backlog of gloom. One reason is the science behind estimating the toll of nuclear exchange is still off.
For example, this one scenario bouncing around Reddit lately that claims to use sound data, let's call it early 2001 in NGE's Accidental War.
Now to pick this nonsense apart. Comments on the subreddit post indicate that surface temperatures for the northern hemisphere during the t+10 months nuclear winter would not be that unbearable. This is because atomic tests conducted in the late forties and early fifties used what was arguably Depression Era construction techniques to estimate blast damage. Instead of average -23 Centigrade at the equator, it would be an average 2 degrees difference globally (so temporary band aid against the climate crisis at best).
To create a global curtain of radiation, airburst payloads don't cut it. And surface detonations will find less fuel (wood construction) for the resulting smoke and dust required. At least in the States, civil engineers reviewing Katrina like it was some Jutland has us in a bit of a city remodeling race against Malaysia, Japan, and other wealthy countries.
These days, we are more susceptible to volcanos in terms of what's really going to deliver a wallop. But we'll manage.
(Yes, the same guy who did The Snowman.)
The animated cartoon was aired in 1982, the same year that Briggs finished up and published
Wind Blows (per Wiki). I guess it's all about how you look at snow conditions.
If your spirit is too weak to handle staring down the Abyss, I recommend feeding yourself heroin to be able to do it rather than feeding yourself lies.
We are going to have to change the subject at this point, Mauer.
