211–220 of 221 posts
What happens to nuclear power plants if they’re destroyed by a nuclear blast? Or a nuclear waste facility? Wouldn’t that result in a Chernobyl like event, without the ability to contain it as quickly? How would the world handle a few dozen Chernobyls all at once?
It would be basically irrelevant compared to other consequences of full scale-nuclear war.
So... I guess it's okay if Russia nukes Ukraine? Does that explain the March 27th publication date?
"Known" nuclear weapons. Good part of the motivation of that arms race was to discourage the enemy to start a war, even if they had everything to win it. In that line, there had been rumours of doomsday devices (like Dead Hand from URSS in the Cold War) that could put in danger most life on Earth, that could be triggered if some side loses or other defined conditions. It is a level up from mutual assured destruction.…
> rumours of doomsday devices (like Dead Hand from URSS in the Cold War) that could put in danger most life on Earth, that could be triggered if some side loses or other defined conditions. The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost...if you keep it a secret! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozg7gEchjuM
So... I guess it's okay if Russia nukes Ukraine? Does that explain the March 27th publication date?
I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.
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?
Either because they think that a nuclear escalation won't happen, or, more concerningly, because they think that a nuclear escalation is something that they can win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"people who already knew how to farm without artificial fertilizers. Today we are nearly 8 billion and a much smaller fraction have any experience farming." As if it were an expensive and impractical proposition for more people to grow a little food. The reason fewer people engage in farming is that fewer people need to engage in it, and it is neither well-rewarded nor an intrinsically desirable activity for most peo…
John deer tractors digitally brick themselves if you replace a part without authorisation. Most modern Ag machinery will be gone. Modern farms don't plant seed from their last harvest, specialised farms cultivate seeds, and 'normal' farms buy them and plants them - that system will be gone. Most agrochemicals will be gone. Is your plan to give a random joe a field and a hoe? They will get maybe 30% of the yield a pro…
So we only need three times as many random joes as "proffeshional" farmers to produce the same amount of food? That's much better than I thought.
I agree that without industrialized farming, the food supply is questionable. But the idea that the trouble is in people not having the necessary skills, rather than petrochemical availability, is simply laughable. Agricultural society has existed for tens of thousands of years and people engage in agricultural activity to the extent that it is needed.
I 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.
I'm not concerned about it deciding to end civilization. It can't. All those weapons can do for it is to provide a guarantee that anyone starting a war with them will lose a lot more than they gain.
If you're concerned about Chinese nuclear weapons, my best advice for you is to not go to war with China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.
This is an article downplaying the severity and seriousness of the use of nuclear weapons. It was published shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine (again). Perhaps the timing is just a coincidence, but I've come to learn over the years that it's unlikely.
If they are downplaying nuclear war - can you recommend articles of a similar quality presenting claim that nuclear war is worse than presented here?
And this article still presents it as an horrific disaster - and maybe it assumes that people are aware that millions would die in just opening of the nuclear war, it would be worst disaster in history. And that such thing happening would be bad. And unwanted.
And focused on countering "we will all die" perspective.
For example they are taking as given that USA shooting down Russian planes over Ukraine is nonstarter because it increases risk of nuclear war,
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, obviously this. I support stronger military action. I don’t want nuclear war. Again, obviously. All that blob of text is pointless. NATO need merely declare it has no offensive ambitions. Which it doesn’t. Then there’s no existential threat. Whether Russia chooses to use nukes, likely against kyiv, is really independent of that distinction. Whether the west responds with nukes is all but assuredly “no”.
> NATO need merely declare it has no offensive ambitions. Which it doesn’t. Then there’s no existential threat. Let's examine that from a counterfactual standpoint. Let's say that during the invasion of Iraq Russia had decided to impose a no fly zone and then proceeded to shoot down American aircraft when they violated it. They of course declared that they have no offensive ambitions, they're simply helping to defend…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, this is the same type of article that, from the comfort of the author's arm chair, says things like: "well humanity survived the black death, basically no matter what we're going to be fine." You can only shrug it off looking at the abstract numbers. You absolutely do not want to live through a period of history that's anything like that.
> You absolutely do not want to live through a period of history that's anything like that. Perhaps a good rule of thumb might be “you don’t want to experience a deadly event where it’s difficult to say whether you’d rather be one of the early people to die or one of the survivors.”