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

111–120 of 140 posts

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

#111

Post by mysecretaccount »

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…

Unfortunately I think the UAPs cited by the Pentagon are just as likely to be of Chinese or Russian origin.

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

#112

Post by danaris »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #96
robryan wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an interesting question in that is the proportional response to a tactical nuke a tactical nuke. It would also vary in terms of the opponent's capabilities, say if the US isn't well setup to deploy them or won't gain the same battlefield advantage. For effective deterrence I think there has to be an expectation that the response to a tactical nuke is the big red button.

It's a wide field and fascinating topic - does response have to be in kind to be proportional or disproportional? Right now West's response to Russian invasion is highly asymmetric - essentially sanctions vs missiles. (the link I sent is a bit meandering but seems to indicate Russia has ~20x the tactical nukes that NATO has deployable in Europe, although of course categorization always muddies waters. That would seem…

> Right now West's response to Russian invasion is highly asymmetric - essentially sanctions vs missiles.

The impression I have thus far is that this is because

a) Russia has not invaded/declared war on "the West" in a meaningful way yet: it has invaded the Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO, the EU, or any other specific mutual defense pact with the rest of "the West".

b) Relevantly to this thread, Russia has not yet used any forms of warfare that truly cross the line into "mad dog that needs to be put down at all costs". The cluster bombs are pretty bad, yes, and reflect very badly on Russia, but they're still conventional munitions.

If Russia breaks out chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, the calculation on (b) changes. Doesn't automatically mean everyone's going to jump on them—I don't pretend to know how any given country would respond to that, even my own (the US). But it at least means they have to start rethinking whether (a) remains relevant to their decision not to get directly involved.

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

#113

Post by z303 »

amelius wrote: post #55
trixie_ wrote: post #23

Paranoid, 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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_man%27s_switch

I wonder what state Dead Hand/Perimeter is in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand

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

#114

Post by [deleted] »

robryan wrote: post #95
NikolaNovak wrote: post #52

It 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, en…

It is an interesting question in that is the proportional response to a tactical nuke a tactical nuke. It would also vary in terms of the opponent's capabilities, say if the US isn't well setup to deploy them or won't gain the same battlefield advantage. For effective deterrence I think there has to be an expectation that the response to a tactical nuke is the big red button.

[deleted]

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

#115

Post by dzhiurgis »

There's 3800 active warheads and 10'000 cities. Many of the cities would need multiple nukes to be wiped out. Many nukes would get disarmed by iron domes, anti-ballistic missiles, etc.

Nucular fallout is thing that I'm not sure about. Technically more efficient bombs are cleaner, but I didn't go too deep into this and I'm not even sure there's conclusive data.

Overall I don't think it's anywhere enough to completely wipe out humanity. Not even majority of people would be killed. But definitely it would effect everyone. Even current events already effecting everyone.

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

#116

Post by unfocussed_mike »

V__ wrote: post #106
unfocussed_mike wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Reassuri…

Fascinating article, thank you. What it also says, is that he may be emotional, but he isn't a madman. So wouldn't the question then be: How likely does Putin think a nuke on Ukraine would trigger a NATO response. Since he must know, a nuclear exchange with NATO would mark his end. What do you think?

He's a psychopath. When he is cornered he will do whatever works for him. Because that is all he can do.

The thing that might temper this is, I think, is that he does have children. Psychopaths aren't capable of true emotional love, but they do look after their things.

It is said (albeit largely in tabloids) that the outcome he fears the most is dying like Gaddafi. He was quite preoccupied by Gaddafi's death at the time:

https://www.reuters.com/article/libya-gaddafi-putin-idUSR4E7...

Maybe he'll commit suicide. Psychopaths do commit suicide. Harold Shipman did, Fred West did, Jeffrey Epstein did (sorry everyone; suicide is the logical explanation).

But they also commit murder-suicide.

This is a guy who has had people pushed out of windows, poisoned, a guy who almost certainly ordered the faking of apartment block bombings as a pretext to invade Chechnya. He's comfortable with cruelty; he has no conscience.

I think it is interesting he is becoming more emotional. He is very narcissistic, but he's always had control over it, appearing showy but gentlemanly and urbane. Perhaps he is losing that control.

Personally I think it's going to be bad. As soon as he believes there is no chance he'll avoid a traitor's death.

I don't know how bad, but I still think there's a good chance he will find a tactical way to demonstrate his willingness to use nuclear weapons.

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

#117

Post by dzhiurgis »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #52

It 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, en…

Russia will first tease and provoke with some nuke in the ocean, then someone's territorial waters, then somewhere in Ukraine, then in some small NATO country like Baltics.

Their fucked up bully goal is to be attacked so they can retaliate with full force.

They'll go one provoking everyone, but when first soldier will be killed by a NATO soldier (which might not even be factual) it's suddenly a drama and oh no poor Russia is invaded by fascists.

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

#118

Post by [deleted] »

danaris wrote: post #112
NikolaNovak wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a wide field and fascinating topic - does response have to be in kind to be proportional or disproportional? Right now West's response to Russian invasion is highly asymmetric - essentially sanctions vs missiles. (the link I sent is a bit meandering but seems to indicate Russia has ~20x the tactical nukes that NATO has deployable in Europe, although of course categorization always muddies waters. That would seem…

> Right now West's response to Russian invasion is highly asymmetric - essentially sanctions vs missiles. The impression I have thus far is that this is because a) Russia has not invaded/declared war on "the West" in a meaningful way yet: it has invaded the Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO, the EU, or any other specific mutual defense pact with the rest of "the West". b) Relevantly to this thread, Russia has no…

[deleted]

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

#119

Post by dzhiurgis »

phillipseamore wrote: post #83

The threat of using nuclear weapons is much more powerful than actually using them because just about everyone thinks they can cause more devastation than they actually can. There have already been 2058 nuclear explosions on earth since 1945, close to 600 megatons in total. Theories like nuclear winter have been disproven. Radiation is down to reasonable levels 10 minutes after explosions and down to zero well within…

This. There are 3800 active warheads to cover 10 thousand cities. It's grotesque, but we don't have enough nukes!
Post reply on HN