• Deme
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Eh, depends on if we go out with a bang or a whimper. I’m betting it’s going to be the latter.

    If not, then it’s likely that nukes put a stop to the artilleryfest before it has a chance to really get going. And my point about there being a lot of roads in the world still stands. No military would start to target roads in any meaningful scale when they’re going to save their precious shells for the enemy.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Right, but where are the enemy likely to be? Along major roads and highways. Armies need to move their military equipment somehow, so that’s where you’re likely to see the bombs being used the most. That, and in cities to control the movements of your enemy. I doubt we’d jump straight to nukes, it’s more likely going to be a slog fest with traditional weapons until one of the sides gets desperate (e.g. Russia v Ukraine).

      • Deme
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Sure, but the roads the enemy is using are a vast minority of all the roads out there, constrained to certain geographical areas. If one happens to be in the middle of it, they’ll have bigger concerns than whether to invest in a bike or a horse.

        If it’s the apocalypse, then everyone will be desperate.