[deleted]
Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?
51–60 of 140 posts
Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?
#52It always surprises me that most of the discussion on nuclear Armageddon is about sudden push of big red button.
I think in conflicts like this, each side tries to be the one to make the big, unanswerable bluff. "I'll escalate so high they won't dare follow". But there's a lot between guns and even thermobaric missiles and cluster bombs, and global thermonuclear annihilation.
My assumption is that the intervening, enabling step is tactical nukes.
Somebody somewhere decides that a kilotone-range tactical nuke (as opposed to megaton range ICBM) is justifiable on the battlefield, will bring swift victory, and other side won't dare escalate further.
So now you're breached the "nuclear" threshold in a way you tell yourself is "limited" and "tactical" and "justifiable", but other side certainly doesn't perceive it as such, and brings "proportional response" otherwise you'll just go ahead and do it again, and off we go from there.
So yes, it 100% could happen. I'm hoping it doesn't.
edit: A bit of a read, but basically, Tactical Nukes have historically been a more practical aspect of Russian Military Doctrone.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12088.8?seq=1#metadata_in...
Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?
#53I think it's more plausible that Russia would use mini-nukes on certain strategic targets. It would be to signal that they're willing to go all the way, but without actually committing suicide by nuking western countries. The nuclear super-powers are in a situation where they have enough nukes to obliterate each other - many, many times over. But obviously no-one wants to take that chance - even with all the modern a…
There's so much uninformed conversation around, do people in this thread not realize that it Russia nukes any Ukrainian site, the US is obliged to nuke Russia a la Budapest Memorandum ?
Just to be clear the Budapest Memorandum doesn't say anybody needs to nuke anybody. It only says that the sovereignty and borders of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan must be respected. One can respect those borders without going to war and just keep protesting in the UN.
Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?
#54> And why do we assume that the tech is sufficiently advanced to e.g. take out every major city at the push of a button?
I guess you didn't grow up under the cold war? Typical nuclear weapons are 10-20 megatons of explosive force and can destroy everything within a city-wide radius or more. There is the capability to deliver 100-200 megaton mega weapons too (they have been tested in the 60's, look up Tsar Bomba).
Delivery devices like ICBMs include dozens of these warheads in independently target-able munitions--the idea is that one big missile can be shot down, but a shower of dozens and dozens of warheads is impossible to stop when only one needs to hit. These missiles can launch from undetectable nuclear-powered submarines laying in wait anywhere on 70% of the globe (even under a sheet of arctic ice).
As far as numbers go they were vastly reduced in the 90s, but both the US and Russia have enough nuclear munitions left to destroy every major city in the world.
Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?
#55Paranoid, isolated man with a big red button in front of him that can take out every major city in the world.. It can absolutely happen. The subs are armed and ready. Literally the push of a button. The fact it hasn’t happened yet is something to be thankful for everyday.
Even scarier is the idea that he might have shorted the button with a dead man's switch.
Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?
#56Paranoid, isolated man with a big red button in front of him that can take out every major city in the world.. It can absolutely happen. The subs are armed and ready. Literally the push of a button. The fact it hasn’t happened yet is something to be thankful for everyday.
It's much more involved than "literally the push of a button."
Once someone who’s authorized to order a strike, e.g. Putin, gives the command (“presses the button”) - what else would Putin need to do for his command to be carried out?
My guess would be he doesn’t need to do much, and that the “risk” would be someone down the chain of command refuses to carry out the order.
Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?
#57Paranoid, isolated man with a big red button in front of him that can take out every major city in the world.. It can absolutely happen. The subs are armed and ready. Literally the push of a button. The fact it hasn’t happened yet is something to be thankful for everyday.
It's much more involved than "literally the push of a button."
That common misconception is explored in this fine piece of satire from the Onion:
"Obama Makes It Through Another Day Of Resisting Urge To Launch All U.S. Nuclear Weapons At Once"
https://www.theonion.com/obama-makes-it-through-another-day-...
Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?
#58No. Its an everyone loses everything situation. Even narcistic authoritarians realize that. And in the event I am wrong, then so what, I'll be dead.
A reasonable human being would renounce counterattack to prevent mankind's annihilation.
So the first one would be the winner.
Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?
#59Paranoid, isolated man with a big red button in front of him that can take out every major city in the world.. It can absolutely happen. The subs are armed and ready. Literally the push of a button. The fact it hasn’t happened yet is something to be thankful for everyday.
It's much more involved than "literally the push of a button."
Not that much more.
It's some phone calls to get the ball rolling. Whether or not various operators of nuclear ICBMs follow through, only one nuke is all it'd take to really massively change the world.
Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?
#60Nuclear armageddon almost happened multiple times in the past. To think it can’t happen is a necessary step in ensuring that it does.
Huh? The inversion (assuming it can happen) doesn't protect you... so I wouldn't call it "necessary". Edit Otherwise you end up with a nice contradiction: "how could this happen?! I was assuming it could happen, so it really shouldn't have!
the inversion may be necessary but not sufficient condition. I don't think you've exposed a logic flaw in OP statement (we can still discuss whether we grant them the premise)