> would cause a level of global famine that would bring every country on the planet to its knees,

No, it would not. Even 10 thousand nukes in a WW3 scenario wouldn't effect parts of South America at all.

> I meant more the collapse of everything that we currently rely on to survive.

Then why are you doubling down when that's not what you said?

> You think 100 nukes won’t end the world?

Yes.

> Where the fuck do you live in la la land and how is the weather?

Ah attacking the poster and not the content. Classic shit poster.

> would not end the world as we know it.

What are you talking about? We are talking about ending the world, not 'as we know it'.

Did you reply to the correct post?

We have 10's of thousands of nukes and it's not enough to end the world.

You are ignorant.

Everybody in the US is in economic wars with each other, the EU, and every body else.

It's called capitalism and the war is competition.

> Its too much for simple malfunction.

Source please.

You are making shit up.

Belarus is a puppet state of Russia. I'm not sure those are different militaries.

How would insufficiently equipped tanks with completely inexperienced crew help?

And that's the yearly production during relative peace times.

Their stockpile of supplies to make them are running out too.