How destructive are nuclear weapons really?
navalgazing.net
How destructive are nuclear weapons really?
1–10 of 221 posts
Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?
#2No post body was provided.
Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?
#3I think it might be for the better that we think nuclear weapons are world ending in that it stops them from being used
Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?
#4The conclusion:
>Nuclear war is bad, and we should be very careful not to have one, but it is not as bad as it is often made out to be. Some of this is because the threat has routinely been exaggerated by anti-nuclear groups, and some of it is the result of arms control efforts over the past half-century, which have significantly reduced the potential human toll of a nuclear war
It’s odd to me that he blames exaggeration of nuclear weapons on anti-nuclear and anti-proliferation.
It would seem likely to me that the exaggeration is more due to pro-nuclear forces and nuclear state powers, with the aim of promoting peace through power and deterrence.
Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?
#5It depends: Real-world nukes, or Hollywood nukes.
If real-world nukes, play with Nukemap to get an idea.
Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?
#6I think it might be for the better that we think nuclear weapons are world ending in that it stops them from being used
That only works as long as Putin and Xi also believe they are world-ending.
Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?
#7As a wannabe libertarian, I believe in freedom of speech and information. But if I had to choose a single topic of all that has to banned, it would be this.
Due to several cognitive biases human perception tends to lean towards black & white depiction of the world. In nuclear war topic black is "we all are gonna die so there is no point to use the nukes" and white is "well, it's not that bad after all, maybe we could nuke those evil Russians/Americans". Black depiction must be maintained in public space even if the preconditions are false. The Overton window must stay where it is now.
Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?
#8I think it might be for the better that we think nuclear weapons are world ending in that it stops them from being used
It might be worse if we were to allow another holocaust because we base our risk assessment on faulty analysis whereas our enemies feel free to threaten because they are working from an accurate risk assessment.
Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?
#9How can we be sure of even a conservative estimate of current warheads. Why wouldn’t US/Russia have significantly more nuclear war heads than they are a) allowed and b) saying they have? Surely it’s in their interest to have more than the other.
Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?
#10>not an existential threat to humanity ... [but] it would be a humanitarian catastrophe unprecedented in human history, as the global economy breaks down and regions are pushed back on their own resources. This could easily kill more people than the war itself, particularly in densely-populated areas, but I would expect things to stabilize at a technology level of maybe the late 19th/early 20th century and start back up.
So, it's exactly as destructive as I think. I get it - some people focus on the worst case scenario of a human-species-ending nuclear winter. I'm not actually particularly interested in how likely or unlikely that specific outcome is, as the "lesser" outcomes are plenty horrifying enough, and don't call for a general downplaying of nuclear attacks like this.