this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
715 points (97.4% liked)
Greentext
4397 readers
1209 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Surely they would have had their fill at the start of the apocalypse, no?
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.
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).
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.