Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction? • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#151

Post by sudosysgen » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:24 AM UTC

tachyonbeam wrote: post #125

throw0101a wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's why a defensive missile shield technology is not a good investment if you want more peace. That depends on whether you go for a 'weak' shield or a 'strong' shield. A weak shield may defend a dozen or two warheads: something that North Korea would launch. Japan has a 'weak' shield AFAICT: * https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1374.html A strong one would protect against hundreds: another major power…

AFAIK anti-missile shields aren't a realistic option. Modern ICBM designs have multiple independently targetable warheads. There are also submarines with nuclear missiles. You can also launch decoys (eg: aluminium foil or flares). And uh. Recently, I was reading a book called Skunk Works. The author explains that, basically, the US was able to keep the existence of stealth fighters a secret from the public (and Russi…

Stealth ICBMs are not a thing. Re-entry prevents complete stealth, as the plasma generates a distinctive radar signature. You could use plasma stealth to make re-entry targets impossible to lock on, but they would be detected.

Also, the existence of stealth fighters was not a secret to the Soviets. They came up with the idea of a stealth fighter and figured out how to minimize the advantage they would give before the US did either, but decided not to pursue it. They were certainly aware of the US stealth program quite early on, and even before the US program started they knew it was possible. However, because of the problematic bureaucracy of the USSR from the 70s onwards this wasn't pursued for quite a while, and by the time the program reached maturity the collapse of the USSR was well on it's way.

That is to say, you can't really hide the existence of such big technologies and paradigms to near peer opponents - they probably thought of it before you've finalized your prototype.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#152

Post by xkvhs » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:28 AM UTC

Interesting article, I've heard argument that nuclear war could cause human extinction, but never thought about it twice. Once you put it like this, it's almost obvious that those claims are hugely exaggerated. Great exercise in critical thinking! Though it's of no practical use, since it's obvious that no financial, territorial or political gains would be enough to justify a nuclear war.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#153

Post by baybal2 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:31 AM UTC

EthanHeilman wrote: post #137

devy wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! The intangible disruptions of a human society will indirectly cause eventual death due to the nuclear war. Think about it, just the COVID-19 lockdown of a few weeks can cause economy collapsed, people out of jobs, can't paid rent, utilities. A nuclear war will immediate cut off or contaminate essential human necessities, like food, water, shelters, electricity etc., so even without getting harmed by kinetic…

I always found that more frightening than total extinction. I can't imagine all humans blinking out in a few hours. I can imagine having no food or money, trying to work dangerous odd jobs here and there and starving to death along with 30% of my town during a winter famine a few years later.

Think of life outside the Western world for a bit. This was the case for most of colonised Asia, and is still is a thing for some places in Africa.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#154

Post by ngcc_hk » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:32 AM UTC

I would not try and I just hope we do not even talk about trying even 1 more atomic bomb. Just coward I suppose not to experiment with humanity.

Not even changing gene ... I am bad.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#155

Post by baybal2 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:35 AM UTC

taneq wrote: post #135

tachyonbeam wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK anti-missile shields aren't a realistic option. Modern ICBM designs have multiple independently targetable warheads. There are also submarines with nuclear missiles. You can also launch decoys (eg: aluminium foil or flares). And uh. Recently, I was reading a book called Skunk Works. The author explains that, basically, the US was able to keep the existence of stealth fighters a secret from the public (and Russi…

I don't understand why you would keep such a thing secret. As Dr. Strangelove rightly pointed out, a doomsday device is pointless if nobody knows about it.

Having just any weapon is worth keeping a secret. From the moment you have a weapon, and an enemy, the later will try to disarm you.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#156

Post by baybal2 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:41 AM UTC

lwneal wrote: post #47

Today, the 1950's era "Duck and Cover" drills [1] are sometimes laughed at. However, in the event of an actual nuclear blast, some simple preparation would save lives. When a bright flash lights up the sky, people indoors will naturally run to the nearest window to see what happened. This is the wrong thing to do, because the bright flash of an explosion is followed a few seconds later by a pressure wave, turning the…

I remember reading a Russia analogue of Twiter at the time, and it was just exploding with “You idiot, you've killed us all!” towards Putin.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#157

Post by baybal2 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:42 AM UTC

ghostcluster wrote: post #25

newfeatureok wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are you really comparing COVID to a hypothetical nuclear war? COVID barely disrupted the supply chain because people who actually work those mission critical jobs had to continue working on site. This wouldn’t be the case if nukes were dropping

In my mind, the most likely candidate for a nuclear war right now comes in a chaotic escalation of the conflict between Pakistan and India. I think this scenario would be horrible, but its damage to the rest of the world's supply chains? Probably less than COVID? The other conflict that worries me is a major provocation by China towards Taiwan. This is the foreign policy scenario that frightens me most, and feels lik…

> I think this scenario would be horrible, but its damage to the rest of the world's supply chains? Probably less than COVID?

Punjab is one of world largest food production regions.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#158

Post by baybal2 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:46 AM UTC

cma wrote: post #147

>There simply aren't enough nuclear warheads to kill everyone directly with kinetic force, This assumes nuclear warheads only and not a doomsday device. If Teller Ulam scales with additional hydrogen stages needed only, and not fissile ones beyond the primary, then a doomsday device is possible that does kinectic damage to the entire earth, wiping everyone out. A smaller country that can't develop warheads and delive…

> This assumes nuclear warheads only and not a doomsday device. If Teller Ulam scales with additional hydrogen stages needed only, and not fissile ones beyond the primary, then a doomsday device is possible that does kinectic damage to the entire earth, wiping everyone out.

There is an upper limit on the power of a bomb. At some point the radiation pressure starts to blows away the new fuel faster than it can detonate.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#159

Post by lmm » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:47 AM UTC

KineticLensman wrote: post #123

Iv wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If nukes are used for extermination, yes, we don't stand much of a chance. If it is used for warfare, then the story is different. Normally, one does not really care about wiping the enemy's cities but would focus on military installations, military bases, navies, harbors... A nuclear war would stop when one side can't fight anymore and surrenders. It may happen after deadly exchanges that would cost millions of live…

In the UK, installation, bases and navies are very close to or embedded in cities. PJHQ is Northwest London. The Royal Navy is based near large cities on the South Coast and Scotland. Thermonuclear attacks on these bases would affect millions of people.

Yes, because the UK is densely populated. Not every country is like that.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#160

Post by jay_kyburz » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:48 AM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #149

jay_kyburz wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ammo and electricity would not last long in most parts of the world. I think a lot of communities would have real trouble even feeding themselves and a few hard winters could wipe them out.

You could scavenge electric motors, some metal sheets and a bunch of wood into a hydroelectric generator. So there would still be electricity.

Yeah, OK, I know how to wrap copper and spin it around magnets, and get _some_ electricity, but I don't know how to measure or manage the voltage and the current. I don't know how to make an inverter. I don't know how to make a light bulb or a battery (or really anything that "uses" the power). Exiting appliances only have only at most 20 years in them.

With everybody struggling to raise crops and livestock, let along trying to reinvent the light bulb, it would a long slow climb back to civilization.