Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 140 posts

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#71

Post by unfocussed_mike »

V__ wrote: post #65

I think it makes more sense to break this question down into a few specific ones: 1. How likely is it that Putin will want to use nuclear weapons? - I don't think he is that mad, but who knows? If the pressure inside Russia starts to rise, protests expand and a win in Ukraine starts to get more and more unlikely.. Cornered animals start to lash out. If he thinks it's his last chance to save himself or his legacy, he…

> 1. How likely is it that Putin will want to use nuclear weapons?

Fiona Hill -- absolutely the smartest person in the room on this topic in a generation -- thinks he absolutely would:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/28/world-war-...

> But just like with Stanislav Petrov it's often people down the line who, when faced with the actual consequences of their actions, choose to do the right thing.

Reassuringly it does seem to be something of a Stanislav Petrov war, doesn't it. Russian soldiers pretty routinely abandoning their vehicles, seemingly even sabotaging them.

But this doesn't apply to Putin. It's important to understand that he does not have a functioning conscience, and he's very comfortable with cruelty.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#72

Post by hrgiger »

partly relevant for aftermath: https://sgs.princeton.edu/the-lab/plan-a

I remember on Turkish TV they have mentioned that in theory if more than 5 nukes drops in the same area that would affect the integrity of earth crust(lithosphere?). No matter wha if its simulation or vr I am definitely asking refund.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#73

Post by NoNameProvided »

It's so surprising that nobody ever talks about the active nuclear policies the countries have. For example Russia states the following:

> With regard to nuclear weapons specifically, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons: > - in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also > - in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.

As long as NATO doesn't nuke something first or the very existence of Russia is not threatened, they should not use nukes.

From this part on I am speculating only, but I believe if Putin would press the red button the officers would have the right to refuse to execute the order.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#74

Post by Mezzie »

maratc wrote: post #36
2bitencryption wrote: post #12

Here's my fear, which I really really hope someone can allay. I just don't see an "off ramp" for Putin right now. The cost he's incurred is HUGE and there's really no way out of this for him. He's already threatened a nuclear response to any country that opposes his attempt, in so many words. I'm afraid he will take advantage of one of his new hyper-glide entry nukes. My fear is not that he will launch ALL nukes, jus…

The real fear for you should be the one where Putin’s regime is toppled, and Russia disintegrates into a series of mini states, all of them with nuclear capabilities.

And this scenario on steroids when America finally disintegrates, though that may or may not happen in our lifetimes. America has over twice as many people, our population is more geographically dispersed, and we're all being pushed to hate each other.

I think the "California nukes Texas in 2093" (or vice versa) version of nuclear armageddon is way more plausible than the "Putin goes insane and nukes Ukraine/other targets 2022" version of nuclear armageddon.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#75

Post by eqmvii »

Possible, yes. Hard to find a better take on “how to respond” than Feynman:

“I returned to civilization shortly after that and went to Cornell to teach, and my first impression was a very strange one. I can't understand it any more, but I felt very strongly then. I sat in a restaurant in New York, for example, and I looked out at the buildings and I began to think, you know, about how much the radius of the Hiroshima bomb damage was and so forth... How far from here was 34th street?... All those buildings, all smashed — and so on. And I would go along and I would see people building a bridge, or they'd be making a new road, and I thought, they're crazy, they just don't understand, they don't understand. Why are they making new things? It's so useless.

But, fortunately, it's been useless for almost forty years now, hasn't it? So I've been wrong about it being useless making bridges and I'm glad those other people had the sense to go ahead.”

-Richard Feynman

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#76

Post by HstryrsrBttn »

maratc wrote: post #36
2bitencryption wrote: post #12

Here's my fear, which I really really hope someone can allay. I just don't see an "off ramp" for Putin right now. The cost he's incurred is HUGE and there's really no way out of this for him. He's already threatened a nuclear response to any country that opposes his attempt, in so many words. I'm afraid he will take advantage of one of his new hyper-glide entry nukes. My fear is not that he will launch ALL nukes, jus…

The real fear for you should be the one where Putin’s regime is toppled, and Russia disintegrates into a series of mini states, all of them with nuclear capabilities.

No post body was provided.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#77

Post by BatmansMom »

2bitencryption wrote: post #12

Here's my fear, which I really really hope someone can allay. I just don't see an "off ramp" for Putin right now. The cost he's incurred is HUGE and there's really no way out of this for him. He's already threatened a nuclear response to any country that opposes his attempt, in so many words. I'm afraid he will take advantage of one of his new hyper-glide entry nukes. My fear is not that he will launch ALL nukes, jus…

Do you think if Russia launches one single nuke onto US land that the government would not issue a retaliatory strike of equal or greater impact? I think its more than likely the US would launch many nukes in response, and the probability of that is at least great enough that Russia wouldn't try it.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#78

Post by jaywalk »

2bitencryption wrote: post #12

Here's my fear, which I really really hope someone can allay. I just don't see an "off ramp" for Putin right now. The cost he's incurred is HUGE and there's really no way out of this for him. He's already threatened a nuclear response to any country that opposes his attempt, in so many words. I'm afraid he will take advantage of one of his new hyper-glide entry nukes. My fear is not that he will launch ALL nukes, jus…

The lack of an "off ramp" for Putin is absolutely my biggest fear as well.

Russia can't survive long-term with the sanctions, so he has to put a stop to them.

The only encouraging thing I could say is that if he follows your plan of one strike, I can't imagine it would be to the US. Even if we didn't go MAD in response, we would immediately be at war with Russia until one of us is destroyed.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#79

Post by smt88 »

ravenstine wrote: post #32

Yes, because humans are apes. We grow up in a world where are lead to believe that our leaders are leading because they are smarter than we are and that they actually have a plan for everything. While not entirely untrue, our leaders (if you can call them that) are nevertheless dumb apes like you and me. Will the dumb apes start nuclear armageddon? Improbable , so far. But implausible? Not completely .

This is a nonsensical non-answer.

Humans are apes, but the other apes couldn't produce nuclear weapons (or even a knife).

If we're different enough from other apes to produce nuclear weapons (and everything else we've created), we're different enough that any analogy to how they would use them is nonsense.

To put it another way: our relationship to apes is as relevant to our propensity for nuclear war as our relationship to dogs or bananas.

Re: Ask HN: Do you think nuclear armageddon is plausible?

#80

Post by piotrkaminski »

earthscienceman wrote: post #28
TrackerFF wrote: post #17

I 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 ?

Probably not, per Wikipedia:

> According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine." [...] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".

Post reply on HN