This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nuclear holocaust article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Here's the information on it:
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_(RDM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 ( talk) 12:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This came up as a result of a move discussion at List of nuclear holocaust fiction. I'd like to reword the article slightly, as "nuclear holocaust" is incorrectly capitalized ("Nuclear Holocaust") in the body text and the article title. Common usage is to spell it as "nuclear holocaust" (lower case), as demonstrated by a Google search on the term. (The upper-case spellings tend to occur only in headline text, where most words are capitalized; the term is in lower case in body text.) Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire."
The definition is accompanied by a usage note that says:"Holocaust: The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II"
The usage note also references the term nuclear holocaust using the lower-case form. -- Ckatz chat spy 03:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)"When capitalized Holocaust refers specifically to the destruction of Jews and other Europeans by the Nazis and may also encompass the Nazi persecution of Jews that preceded the outbreak of the war."
I've moved the page, per the request at
WP:RM and the above discussion. -
GTBacchus(
talk)
08:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Unfortunately I don't know how to insert the link myself. The German article about nuclear holocaust can be found here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuklearer_Holocaust 86.59.64.78
I can understand the significance of the ending of "A Canticle for Leibowitz" within the context of this article, but is it really necessary to spoil the end of the book to make a small point? I mean, seriously, I was considering reading that book sometime. LAME, to say the least, so I deleted it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
35.8.250.103 (
talk)
13:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe that information is better suited for Holocaust. It seems to be extra information that doesn't fit in the context of this article. ~ digx t· c 12:57, 21 November 20 08 (UTC)
we're all going to die regardless of politics and nuclear war so lets just have some cake :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.100.14 ( talk) 00:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I just removed a merge tag from the article that had been there since May of 2013. There has been no discussion here or at the target site, so I'm assuming it's a dead issue. (I think it would be a mistake to merge.) The proposed target page was Nuclear warfare. Dcs002 ( talk) 07:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Currently the page has very little actual detail on the effects of a nuclear war (initial destruction, EMPs, nuclear winter, etc.). I'm going to start work on adding sections detailing these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vluczkow ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Some claims in this article about the expected number of casualties from nuclear exchange cite studies conducted in the 1980s. In some cases, it is not clear which nuclear effects these studies are considering - direct nuclear blast, radiation, fallout, nuclear winter, EMP, etc. When a study is mentioned, it would be helpful to mention the year of the study and also what nuclear effects are being models, since very different numbers can be justified by different models. I will try to clean this up. Davearthurs ( talk) 18:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
User:SamuelRiv, I'm not a climatologist but it seems to the me that Martin 1983, Robock 2007, and Tonn 2009, while none of them are definitive, suggest to me that the current mainstream scientific view is that following a global thermonuclear war, the scenario where there are some survivors is more likely than the scenario where the human race goes extinct. Also, Robock 2007 is cited by [1], which explictly states: "While it is important to point out the consequences of nuclear winter, it is also important to point out what will not be the consequences. Although extinction of our species was not ruled out in initial studies by biologists, it now seems that this would not take place." More informally, Luke Oman (who was a co-author on Robock 2007) had an interview where he initially characterized the in-model odds of extinction as "1 in 10000" and suggested his colleagues agreed it was unlikely. Are there any current models where extinction does occur? Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 05:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC
I've shortened the subsection on nuclear famine because a nuclear famine page with bulk of the content is currently under review. When the page is approved, I will link it to this page. Lina.singapore86 ( talk) 01:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)lina
I have linked the page to nuclear famine Lina.singapore86 ( talk) 17:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Lina
I edited 'on the order of hundreds of weapons' to read '100 Hiroshima yield weapons' as the link at the end of that sentence clearly states it as such. It might also be worth editing that sentence further, as I recall that at least one of the studies has indicated that as few as 50 Hiroshima sized devices would be sufficient to cause a 10 year nuclear winter - the one that was published a couple years ago in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Anyone recall that one? 23.91.131.234 ( talk) 21:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nuclear holocaust's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "agu.org":
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
What's the idea about the introduction setting a distinct tone that Nuclear holocaust is impossible with a large number of uncited and speculative paragraphs, parts of which directly contradict what the subsections say?
It's like the intro has been rewritten by someone trying to build a case for why nuclear weapons arn't so bad after all.
91.186.71.3 ( talk) 21:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Tor Pettersen
It sounds like we're talking past one another. As I said: "I would say that I believe that nuclear winter is accepted as mainstream in the scientific community. Doing a google scholar search for papers written this decade, the first four on-topic papers accept, implicitly or explictly, nuclear winter." Since there's no WP:CONSENSUS for your changes yet, feel free to escalate by appropriate dispute resolution channels if you still wish to make these changes; I remain opposed to them. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 04:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Boundarylayer: @ Rolf h nelson: I was very surprised to see that the nuclear winter section is presented here as if it were an established fact when on the contrary it is extremely controversial. Even in the early days when it was supported by Carl Sagan and others, undoubtedly respectable, but it wasn't accepted by everyone recognizing the limitations of their models. Later on they used their models to predict the effects of the Kuwaiti oil fires and they did not behave as expected. William R. Cotton was originally in favour of Nuclear Winter but then later came down strongly against it. The whole thing has been wakened up again by the papers by Alan Robock which do, as the section says, model the effect of a small exchange of nuclear weapons. What that section doesn't explain is that his model starts with the atmosphere pre-loaded with soot right up to high in the atmosphere. The more recent modeling of the effects of firestorms in cities do not support this distribution of soot. It's basically a case of garbage in garbage out. If you start your model with large volumes of soot high in the atmosphere then everyone agrees you'd end up with a nuclear winter - but that's the very point that is at controversy, whether that happens. The thing that changed scientific opinion after the Kuwaiti oil fires was the realization that their soot formation models were incorrect. Not so much was produced, it didn't loft so high, and much of it soon rains out. The Kuwaiti oil fires did cool down a small area of the Gulf region for a short while. Also there are no nuclear winter type effects from the many wildfires every year, as William Cotton points out, and modern cities wouldn't form such intense fire storms anyway with the widespread use of more fire resistant buildings.
The whole thing is extremely controversial, if not perhaps even verging on junk science because of the way it preloads the model with soot and does not highlight this or explain in detail why they do that.
By presenting the section as it is in this article Wikipedia is also contradicting itself. Normally you'd expect a short summary like this to summarize the much longer Nuclear Winter article. But it instead ploughs its own independent furrow. That article has a long criticism section see Criticism and debate. I think that it urgently needs to be fixed - to explain to the reader that the earlier nuclear winter idea is pretty much regarded as disproved by most scientists with the exception of Alan Robock whose work is regarded by the others as extremely controversial. His motivation may well be political - not that it is deception - he's surely sincere but there's the problem in this area that if you say nuclear war will not cause a nuclear winter you may seem to be downplaying its effects and encouraging nuclear war. Of course that's not true at all. Nuclear war is plenty awful enough without nuclear winter, and anyway the job is to write an encyclopedia not conduct an antinuclear campaign. And I write this as someone who has been a long time advocate of denuclearization - and I think for the UK that we should engage in unilateral disarmament - and set an example to other nations. I'm in the UK and I'm with Jeremy Corbyn and also the SNP on that. I voted for an independent Scotland and one of my top reasons is because if we become an independent Scotland we will give up nuclear weapons unilaterally and become the first country for a long time to do that. I am a strong advocate of a complete end to all nuclear weapons. But I also think the articles on nuclear winter should be accurate and that you shouldn't fight your political case by encouraging the disemmination of inaccurate information. Robert Walker ( talk) 22:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
There is another factor also. Such material scares people who are afraid of human extinction. I am involved in debunking doomsday scenarios to help people, often young children and young adults, who get panic attacks and are sometimes suicidal because of fear of stories like this.
Now if it was accurate you just have to explain to them what the situation is and do what you can to help them cope with their fears and put it in context. But when it is inaccurate like this - then they are scared unnecessarily of something that just isn't true. Luckily I can point them in the direction of the criticism section of the Wikipedia nuclear winter article. Anyway that is also partly why I think it is a matter of urgency to be accurate particularly about anthing that could be an extinction / "Doomsday" scenario. Robert Walker ( talk) 23:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
References
assets.cambridge.org
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).nytimes.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page)."Since 1947, the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has visualized how far the world is from a nuclear war."
Well, it hasn't given any reliable visualization, it's just some people's hypotheses based on how much progress has taken place in favor of or against nuclear warfare. Not sure how to rephrase this. Weegeeweeg ( talk) 03:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Given that the main loss of life resulting from global nuclear war might be due to secondary effects, such as nuclear winter, rather than being due to the nuclear blasts themselves, I will try adding some additional subsections documenting this. These will go under the "Effects of nuclear war" section.
I just added a section on nuclear fallout. I have some text written on nuclear power plant breakdown as well, although it is missing references. Would you advice I post what I have now, or wait until I can add the references? Davearthurs ( talk) 22:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Article states (without source)"Under such a scenario, some of the Earth is made uninhabitable by nuclear warfare in future world wars." Some? Is there SOME way to make that sentence mean something significant? "Some of the earth" could be one village in Afghanistan or continents. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 00:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC))
Consider transitioning from using the word "holocaust" to calling this "nuclear genocide" since "holocaust" is the specific killing of Jews in WWII and genocide has a similar but wider meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baulius ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lukebbaldwin (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Lukebbaldwin ( talk) 19:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi,dangerous people be aware you'll kill yourself until when ??.The true you is unknown until now you leave in fear asking and answering your on self until you use this nuclear holocaust . So you know.Amooketsi you won't go heaven after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.192.199 ( talk) 19:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nuclear holocaust article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Here's the information on it:
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Earth_(RDM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 ( talk) 12:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This came up as a result of a move discussion at List of nuclear holocaust fiction. I'd like to reword the article slightly, as "nuclear holocaust" is incorrectly capitalized ("Nuclear Holocaust") in the body text and the article title. Common usage is to spell it as "nuclear holocaust" (lower case), as demonstrated by a Google search on the term. (The upper-case spellings tend to occur only in headline text, where most words are capitalized; the term is in lower case in body text.) Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire."
The definition is accompanied by a usage note that says:"Holocaust: The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II"
The usage note also references the term nuclear holocaust using the lower-case form. -- Ckatz chat spy 03:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)"When capitalized Holocaust refers specifically to the destruction of Jews and other Europeans by the Nazis and may also encompass the Nazi persecution of Jews that preceded the outbreak of the war."
I've moved the page, per the request at
WP:RM and the above discussion. -
GTBacchus(
talk)
08:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Unfortunately I don't know how to insert the link myself. The German article about nuclear holocaust can be found here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuklearer_Holocaust 86.59.64.78
I can understand the significance of the ending of "A Canticle for Leibowitz" within the context of this article, but is it really necessary to spoil the end of the book to make a small point? I mean, seriously, I was considering reading that book sometime. LAME, to say the least, so I deleted it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
35.8.250.103 (
talk)
13:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe that information is better suited for Holocaust. It seems to be extra information that doesn't fit in the context of this article. ~ digx t· c 12:57, 21 November 20 08 (UTC)
we're all going to die regardless of politics and nuclear war so lets just have some cake :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.100.14 ( talk) 00:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I just removed a merge tag from the article that had been there since May of 2013. There has been no discussion here or at the target site, so I'm assuming it's a dead issue. (I think it would be a mistake to merge.) The proposed target page was Nuclear warfare. Dcs002 ( talk) 07:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Currently the page has very little actual detail on the effects of a nuclear war (initial destruction, EMPs, nuclear winter, etc.). I'm going to start work on adding sections detailing these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vluczkow ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Some claims in this article about the expected number of casualties from nuclear exchange cite studies conducted in the 1980s. In some cases, it is not clear which nuclear effects these studies are considering - direct nuclear blast, radiation, fallout, nuclear winter, EMP, etc. When a study is mentioned, it would be helpful to mention the year of the study and also what nuclear effects are being models, since very different numbers can be justified by different models. I will try to clean this up. Davearthurs ( talk) 18:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
User:SamuelRiv, I'm not a climatologist but it seems to the me that Martin 1983, Robock 2007, and Tonn 2009, while none of them are definitive, suggest to me that the current mainstream scientific view is that following a global thermonuclear war, the scenario where there are some survivors is more likely than the scenario where the human race goes extinct. Also, Robock 2007 is cited by [1], which explictly states: "While it is important to point out the consequences of nuclear winter, it is also important to point out what will not be the consequences. Although extinction of our species was not ruled out in initial studies by biologists, it now seems that this would not take place." More informally, Luke Oman (who was a co-author on Robock 2007) had an interview where he initially characterized the in-model odds of extinction as "1 in 10000" and suggested his colleagues agreed it was unlikely. Are there any current models where extinction does occur? Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 05:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC
I've shortened the subsection on nuclear famine because a nuclear famine page with bulk of the content is currently under review. When the page is approved, I will link it to this page. Lina.singapore86 ( talk) 01:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)lina
I have linked the page to nuclear famine Lina.singapore86 ( talk) 17:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Lina
I edited 'on the order of hundreds of weapons' to read '100 Hiroshima yield weapons' as the link at the end of that sentence clearly states it as such. It might also be worth editing that sentence further, as I recall that at least one of the studies has indicated that as few as 50 Hiroshima sized devices would be sufficient to cause a 10 year nuclear winter - the one that was published a couple years ago in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Anyone recall that one? 23.91.131.234 ( talk) 21:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nuclear holocaust's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "agu.org":
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
What's the idea about the introduction setting a distinct tone that Nuclear holocaust is impossible with a large number of uncited and speculative paragraphs, parts of which directly contradict what the subsections say?
It's like the intro has been rewritten by someone trying to build a case for why nuclear weapons arn't so bad after all.
91.186.71.3 ( talk) 21:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Tor Pettersen
It sounds like we're talking past one another. As I said: "I would say that I believe that nuclear winter is accepted as mainstream in the scientific community. Doing a google scholar search for papers written this decade, the first four on-topic papers accept, implicitly or explictly, nuclear winter." Since there's no WP:CONSENSUS for your changes yet, feel free to escalate by appropriate dispute resolution channels if you still wish to make these changes; I remain opposed to them. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 04:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Boundarylayer: @ Rolf h nelson: I was very surprised to see that the nuclear winter section is presented here as if it were an established fact when on the contrary it is extremely controversial. Even in the early days when it was supported by Carl Sagan and others, undoubtedly respectable, but it wasn't accepted by everyone recognizing the limitations of their models. Later on they used their models to predict the effects of the Kuwaiti oil fires and they did not behave as expected. William R. Cotton was originally in favour of Nuclear Winter but then later came down strongly against it. The whole thing has been wakened up again by the papers by Alan Robock which do, as the section says, model the effect of a small exchange of nuclear weapons. What that section doesn't explain is that his model starts with the atmosphere pre-loaded with soot right up to high in the atmosphere. The more recent modeling of the effects of firestorms in cities do not support this distribution of soot. It's basically a case of garbage in garbage out. If you start your model with large volumes of soot high in the atmosphere then everyone agrees you'd end up with a nuclear winter - but that's the very point that is at controversy, whether that happens. The thing that changed scientific opinion after the Kuwaiti oil fires was the realization that their soot formation models were incorrect. Not so much was produced, it didn't loft so high, and much of it soon rains out. The Kuwaiti oil fires did cool down a small area of the Gulf region for a short while. Also there are no nuclear winter type effects from the many wildfires every year, as William Cotton points out, and modern cities wouldn't form such intense fire storms anyway with the widespread use of more fire resistant buildings.
The whole thing is extremely controversial, if not perhaps even verging on junk science because of the way it preloads the model with soot and does not highlight this or explain in detail why they do that.
By presenting the section as it is in this article Wikipedia is also contradicting itself. Normally you'd expect a short summary like this to summarize the much longer Nuclear Winter article. But it instead ploughs its own independent furrow. That article has a long criticism section see Criticism and debate. I think that it urgently needs to be fixed - to explain to the reader that the earlier nuclear winter idea is pretty much regarded as disproved by most scientists with the exception of Alan Robock whose work is regarded by the others as extremely controversial. His motivation may well be political - not that it is deception - he's surely sincere but there's the problem in this area that if you say nuclear war will not cause a nuclear winter you may seem to be downplaying its effects and encouraging nuclear war. Of course that's not true at all. Nuclear war is plenty awful enough without nuclear winter, and anyway the job is to write an encyclopedia not conduct an antinuclear campaign. And I write this as someone who has been a long time advocate of denuclearization - and I think for the UK that we should engage in unilateral disarmament - and set an example to other nations. I'm in the UK and I'm with Jeremy Corbyn and also the SNP on that. I voted for an independent Scotland and one of my top reasons is because if we become an independent Scotland we will give up nuclear weapons unilaterally and become the first country for a long time to do that. I am a strong advocate of a complete end to all nuclear weapons. But I also think the articles on nuclear winter should be accurate and that you shouldn't fight your political case by encouraging the disemmination of inaccurate information. Robert Walker ( talk) 22:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
There is another factor also. Such material scares people who are afraid of human extinction. I am involved in debunking doomsday scenarios to help people, often young children and young adults, who get panic attacks and are sometimes suicidal because of fear of stories like this.
Now if it was accurate you just have to explain to them what the situation is and do what you can to help them cope with their fears and put it in context. But when it is inaccurate like this - then they are scared unnecessarily of something that just isn't true. Luckily I can point them in the direction of the criticism section of the Wikipedia nuclear winter article. Anyway that is also partly why I think it is a matter of urgency to be accurate particularly about anthing that could be an extinction / "Doomsday" scenario. Robert Walker ( talk) 23:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
References
assets.cambridge.org
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).nytimes.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page)."Since 1947, the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has visualized how far the world is from a nuclear war."
Well, it hasn't given any reliable visualization, it's just some people's hypotheses based on how much progress has taken place in favor of or against nuclear warfare. Not sure how to rephrase this. Weegeeweeg ( talk) 03:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Given that the main loss of life resulting from global nuclear war might be due to secondary effects, such as nuclear winter, rather than being due to the nuclear blasts themselves, I will try adding some additional subsections documenting this. These will go under the "Effects of nuclear war" section.
I just added a section on nuclear fallout. I have some text written on nuclear power plant breakdown as well, although it is missing references. Would you advice I post what I have now, or wait until I can add the references? Davearthurs ( talk) 22:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Article states (without source)"Under such a scenario, some of the Earth is made uninhabitable by nuclear warfare in future world wars." Some? Is there SOME way to make that sentence mean something significant? "Some of the earth" could be one village in Afghanistan or continents. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 00:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC))
Consider transitioning from using the word "holocaust" to calling this "nuclear genocide" since "holocaust" is the specific killing of Jews in WWII and genocide has a similar but wider meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baulius ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lukebbaldwin (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Lukebbaldwin ( talk) 19:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi,dangerous people be aware you'll kill yourself until when ??.The true you is unknown until now you leave in fear asking and answering your on self until you use this nuclear holocaust . So you know.Amooketsi you won't go heaven after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.192.199 ( talk) 19:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)