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

How destructive are nuclear weapons really?

navalgazing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 221 posts

Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?

#131

Post by chakalakasp »

gcheong wrote: post #13

The analysis is interesting and makes sense that populations wouldn’t largely be targeted, but it seems that’s assuming some kind of logical strategy to the war where the objective is to disable the forces of your opponent. That’s nice and tidy to then say populated areas won’t largely be targeted, but what if the objective in using them just becomes to create as much human suffering as possible?

The author has no idea what he is talking about and his thoughts have no relation to actual nuclear targeting plans.

Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?

#132

Post by happytoexplain »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #90
happytoexplain wrote: post #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…

Sadly part of a general trend I've noticed post Ukrainian invasion to "sell" nuclear war as a viable response (or at least not a deterrent for "going in there and fixing things dammit") These people have never been in a supermarket and looked at the countries where their food comes from apparently since shipping would pretty much be a dead industry with all port cities (and their port facilities) basically blown to s…

There's a trend where a nuclear attack on Russia is being encouraged as a response to invading Ukraine? Or am I misreading your first sentence?

Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?

#133

Post by ben_w »

trhway wrote: post #58
happytoexplain wrote: post #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…

>and start back up it willn't be back up to and not even in the direction where we are today. The surviving population will be afflicted with a lot of decease, even several generations later. The minority capable of at least some level of being productive wouldn't be able to provide for and care for all the disabled/ill in their communities. Thus communities successfully surviving in say 100 years will have very diff…

Why do you expect that?

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both rebuilt, cancer levels in those cities in people conceived after the bombs is indistinguishable from places that weren’t nuked: https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/hiroshima-and-nagasaki

Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?

#134

Post by chakalakasp »

empressplay wrote: post #119

Other things to consider: Weapon reliability -- particularly on the Russian side. Will many / most of their ICBMs even get off the ground? Will the warheads actually work properly? I'm not saying they're all duds but if I was Russia I'd maybe keep 100 maintained for the sake of demonstration. Willingness to launch -- this is probably a bigger problem on the Russian side (the Americans brainwash their soldiers better!…

>Weapon reliability -- particularly on the Russian side. Will many / most of their ICBMs even get off the ground? Will the warheads actually work properly? I'm not saying they're all duds but if I was Russia I'd maybe keep 100 maintained for the sake of demonstration.

From the little I've communicated with people who would know (because they used to be in the IC), the vague answer is "Yes, they would work."

>European Theatre -- Russia needs its subs to try to stop UK / American subs from nuking them so they're not likely deployed around NA (instead hunting for enemies closer to home) and thus can't destroy the silos.

The submarines that launch ballistic nuclear missiles are not the same submarines that hunt the submarines that launch ballistic nuclear missiles. You might want to read up on the wiki on this stuff or something.

Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?

#135

Post by ashildr »

extheat wrote: post #76
dv_dt wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this would be back hundred+ years in civilization, with the easiest energy extraction sources for coal/oil etc already gone. Humanity would have a very hard time following the same tech/energy ladder back to now.

I don't think so, I think humans would probably be able to build back pretty quickly given the tech and manufacturing capability we have today. Yeah, 95% of it may have been destroyed worst case, but even at The biggest problem I see is the amount of habitable land on the Earth. For short periods of time, people wandering in nuclear wastelands will mostly be OK, however it's not safe to inhabit so we'd have to move t…

> I think humans would probably be able to build back pretty quickly given the tech and manufacturing capability we have today.

I’m not trying to be rude, but I don’t think that you have any knowlegde of the logistics and the advanced electronics, biology, chemistry and processes that is necessary for the current manufacturing we have to work. If you look into this and learn how complex even the production of the most simple objects and devices is, you may lose some sleep. And this is only about infrastructure - not engineers/specialists who know how to build and operate it. On top there are no easily available hydrocarbons left to bootstrap an industrial civilization a second time.

If we fuck up this time, or are fucked up by a major extinction event, we’ll be stuck in early middle ages until we die out.

Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?

#136

Post by echoradio »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #97
tshaddox wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you have the order of things mixed up. The point is that destroying a financial hub of the world is a more effective way of collapsing civilization than destroying a port.

Could you provide at least some reasoning, if not evidence, to support this counter-intuitive assertion?

I don’t have an opinion regarding order of port vs. financial hub. New York is a target for its communications infrastructure. That is in large part a component which facilitates its staus as a financial/economic hub. If you have a city of ~9M and a metro area of 20M without orderly communication, things can unravel from within very quickly. And everything not destroyed at that point becomes easy pickings.

Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?

#137

Post by cameldrv »

extheat wrote: post #76
dv_dt wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this would be back hundred+ years in civilization, with the easiest energy extraction sources for coal/oil etc already gone. Humanity would have a very hard time following the same tech/energy ladder back to now.

I don't think so, I think humans would probably be able to build back pretty quickly given the tech and manufacturing capability we have today. Yeah, 95% of it may have been destroyed worst case, but even at The biggest problem I see is the amount of habitable land on the Earth. For short periods of time, people wandering in nuclear wastelands will mostly be OK, however it's not safe to inhabit so we'd have to move t…

I think that having 5% manufacturing capacity almost might as well be zero given the kinds of things we manufacture today. For example, a car used to have a carburetor that was relatively simple, just a few metal parts. Now we have very sophisticated high pressure fuel injection systems with exotic pumps and valves, all controlled by chips. All of these parts come from different places, and if you don't have a single part, the car doesn't work.

In fact, the chip supply chain is one of the most fragile ones given the extreme complexity and precision of making even older chips, and yet almost every device we use now uses electronics instead of mechanical parts just about everywhere it's possible to make the substitution.

Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?

#138

Post by ben_w »

edgyquant wrote: post #128
amelius wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different perspective: at least they will delay the singularity, which could be a life-saver, overall.

The singularity is science fiction at best

Any particular singularity scenario is (and “we’re doomed!” is in that category), but the general idea “something unpredictable will happen” seems like an unavoidable conclusion to me.

(Although that might just be a reverse Epimenides).

Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?

#139

Post by lostlogin »

happytoexplain wrote: post #132
ChuckMcM wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly part of a general trend I've noticed post Ukrainian invasion to "sell" nuclear war as a viable response (or at least not a deterrent for "going in there and fixing things dammit") These people have never been in a supermarket and looked at the countries where their food comes from apparently since shipping would pretty much be a dead industry with all port cities (and their port facilities) basically blown to s…

There's a trend where a nuclear attack on Russia is being encouraged as a response to invading Ukraine? Or am I misreading your first sentence?

It seems more likely that Russia would use them - Putin has talked of deploying them as a threat, and tactical usage has come up in recent days (though from an American source).

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-cannot-take-lightly-threat-...

Re: How destructive are nuclear weapons really?

#140

Post by chakalakasp »

edgyquant wrote: post #129
chakalakasp wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the publications the U.S. made for the population back then were reassuring. The people who actually plan the wars these days expect maybe 15 to 20 million people to still be alive in the U.S. a year and a half after a full general war.

Do you have a source for this?

Yes.
Post reply on HN