NUCLEAR WAR – FIRST STRIKE: One Moment the City Is Alive—Vibrant and Full of Hope. The Next, It’s Silent, Cold, and Dead

No one wants to talk about a nuclear war—and hopefully it will never happen—but we all must accept the fact that nuclear tensions are rising globally with the Israel-Iran escalation. Most people don’t seem to realize that we are at an extremely dangerous moment in world history! What do you think will happen if America is dragged into this war by Israel to participate in the attack on Iran and other Islamic nations enter the war on Iran’s side? What do you think would happen if Russia or China joined the conflict? World War 3 will break out, and the consequences will be devastating. The world we live in today could end. This conflict could escalate rapidly into a total nuclear conflict where there would be no winners—only a cataclysmic outcome of biblical proportions!

For decades, movies and some in the media have portrayed a nuclear attack as a “doomsday” event implying most people would be killed on impact … and that survivors would wish they had died. In reality, it could be even worse!

What would a total nuclear war be like? When you think of nuclear war, you probably envision an all-out holocaust in which adversaries unleash their arsenals to inflict the maximum amount of destruction. Many experts estimate that over 70% of the United States’ population could be killed by the immediate effects of a total nuclear war. For those within the radius of destruction, it wouldn’t matter whether theirs was an isolated explosion or part of a larger attack. But for survivors in less-damaged areas, the difference could be profound. One moment, the city is alive—full of hope, vibrant and buzzing. With the flip of a switch, it lies still, cold, dead—no hope, no future, only darkness, pain, and suffering.

Consider the injured. Thermal flash burns extend well beyond the 5-psi radius of destruction. A single nuclear explosion might produce 10,000 cases of severe burns requiring specialized medical treatment. In a nuclear war, there could be several million such cases. Yet the United States has facilities to treat fewer than 2,000 burn victims—virtually all in urban centers likely to be destroyed. Burn victims who might be saved under normal conditions would die in the aftermath of nuclear war. The same goes for fractures, lacerations, crushed skulls, punctured lungs, and missing limbs. Where would the doctors, hospitals, and medical supplies come from? Most would be destroyed, and those that remained would be overwhelmed. Many who could be saved with modern medicine would die.

In a nuclear war, lethal fallout would cover much of the United States. Survivors could avoid fatal radiation exposure only if they sheltered with adequate food, water, and medical supplies. Even then, millions would be exposed to radiation high enough to cause lowered disease resistance and a higher incidence of fatal cancer. Everyday infections could become deadly, and contaminated water supplies, nonexistent sanitation, and decomposing bodies would spark epidemic outbreaks. The international group Physicians for Social Responsibility has called nuclear war “the last epidemic.”

Attempts to contain damage to cities, suburbs, and infrastructure would mirror the medical crisis. Firefighting equipment, water and fuel supplies, power grids, and emergency communications would be destroyed. Transportation into and out of cities would be blocked by debris. With little radiation-monitoring equipment or trained personnel, emergency workers wouldn’t know where it’s safe to operate. And there would be no unaffected cities left to send aid—everyone would be crippled by nuclear war.

Is Nuclear War Survivable?

More than 70% of the U.S. population could be killed outright in a nuclear war. But what will happen to the survivors?

Recent studies using three-dimensional urban models examined the effects of 10-kiloton detonations in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles. The results confirmed a critical rule: staying indoors for 48 hours after a nuclear blast is now recommended. Fallout levels drop by a factor of 100 in that time. Buildings between you and the blast can block radiation, and going deeper inside improves protection. The same advice applies to rural areas affected by fallout.

These models, however, only address single detonations—like those from a terrorist or rogue actor. In a nuclear war, we must ask: Then what?

Some may survive the initial blasts—but what about long-term survival? Could traumatized, weakened survivors mount the coordinated effort needed to rebuild? How would they react to seeing loved ones die of radiation poisoning? Would selfishness overtake cooperation? What government structures would remain? Could anyone still communicate across the country? Would international relief be possible?

Some nuclear war researchers describe postwar society as racing against time. The war would destroy most of the nation’s productive capacity and kill off experts needed for rebuilding. It would obliterate food reserves and essential goods.

Survivors would have to sustain themselves on remaining supplies long enough to restart food and materials production before the reserves ran out. Could shell-shocked survivors and shattered governments meet that challenge? That is the ultimate nuclear question—one that we hope is never answered.

Climatic Effects

A large-scale nuclear war would inject massive amounts of chemicals and soot into the atmosphere. Scientists didn’t seriously study this until deep into the nuclear age—and their findings were disturbing.

The upper atmosphere contains ozone, which blocks harmful UV radiation. A nuclear war would release ozone-destroying chemicals, drastically increasing UV exposure. Marine life would suffer, humans would burn, and skin cancer rates would rise, all while the immune system is weakened.

Even worse, soot from burning cities would darken the skies. A 1983 study by Turco, Sagan, and others (the TTAPS paper) warned that just 100 nuclear warheads could lower global temperatures drastically—creating “nuclear winter.” In its most extreme form, this could cause human extinction.

The initial study, based on limited modeling, sparked backlash. Carl Sagan promoted the results in the press and faced attacks from pro-nuclear scientists like Edward Teller, who labeled it speculative. Despite criticism, research continued.

Modern climate models now show that a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia could launch 150 million tons of soot into the stratosphere. This would drop global temperatures by 8°C—more than the difference between now and the last Ice Age. Even a decade later, temperatures would remain 4°C below normal. In key agricultural regions, it could remain below freezing for over a year, and rainfall could fall by 90%. The effect on global food production would be catastrophic.

Even a smaller nuclear conflict could be devastating. A 100-warhead exchange between India and Pakistan could shorten growing seasons, disrupt monsoons, and threaten the food supply of over a billion people.

Summary

Nuclear weapons are unlike anything else. The destructive blasts stretch for miles, and fallout can poison areas hundreds of miles away. A total nuclear war would cripple all chances of recovery and unravel the social fabric. Radiation would sicken or kill most survivors. The climate effects could doom billions worldwide.

No one knows exactly how a total nuclear war would unfold—but all research shows it would be worse than we can imagine. It would be doomsday. If you haven’t made peace with the Lord, now may be the time. The way things are going on this planet, we may not have much time left. Prepare your soul for what lies ahead.