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

Nukes of Hazard (2013)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 176 posts

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#41

Post by gambiting »

arethuza wrote: post #30
lotharbot wrote: post #3

The article claims that a nine-megaton blast would wipe out "most of the state of Arkansas". Wikipedia claims the lethal radius on a bomb of that size is about 20 miles for thermal effects ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb#Effects ), which is around 2% of the area of Arkansas; other effects are described as having an even smaller radius. I suspect, but cannot prove, the wikipedia number is more likely t…

Fall-out effects from such a large & dirty H-bomb detonated at ground level would have been pretty bad - you wouldn't want to be downwind of such an event. [Edit 1] Actually, if you consider the indirect effects of the use of such a weapon - particularly the large number of refugees fleeing contaminated areas, huge numbers of injured etc. while such a detonation wouldn't destroy an entire state it would probably redu…

>> suggesting that the hundreds of weapons the Soviets had pointing at the UK were complete overkill...

As Schlosser says in his book - because of the lack of coordination between the Air Force, Army, US Navy and Missile Forces, at one point there was something like 400(sorry if I remembered the number wrong,but it was in hundreds) nuclear rockets aimed at Moscow, many of them with multi-megaton payload. If they were launched, Moscow wouldn't be just destroyed - the entire area would be turned into the biggest crater on earth.

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#42

Post by tim333 »

mobiplayer wrote: post #20

I'm surprised the article doesn't mention when in 1966 the US dropped 4 nuclear bombs off the Spanish coast. It was, of course, an accident but I've always felt it was pretty serious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash

It sees they actually dropped some on Spain rather that off the coast. From Wikipedia: "Of the four Mk28-type hydrogen bombs the B-52G carried, three were found on land near the small fishing village of Palomares"

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#43

Post by Rapzid »

I wouldn't have thought how trumped up and ludicrous this all was. I was born in 1984, so I really started becoming aware in the bubble that existed after the wall fell and before 9/11. Sure, I read 1984 and Farenhiet 451 but the seemed like commentary about the future, what could become. Apparently they were just as relevant when they were written. Constant war with the "enemy". The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. Build their bombs. Spend that sweet tax-payer money. Feel important. Lie to the government. The past seemed so legit and so ancient when I was growing up. After 9/11 I had no idea history was repeating itself. Now we have the ever present(statistically ridiculous) threat of "terrorism". The NSA needs more powers, more money; to protect us of course. They WOULD say that because that's how they get more money, more employees, more power. Still lying to the government of course(weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?). Now we have an ex-NSA head launching a venture charging companies 1 million a month to protect them! Of course they'll contract back to government. And the NSA will tell use all about how we don't need to worry about what they are doing, we just need to pay up.

sigh

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#44

Post by VMG »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #15
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #4

From reading the article, I get the sense that the best thing working in our[1] favor was having a series of relatively steady, not crazy hands on the nuclear football, on both sides. It's still incredibly frightening that the annihilation of the human race was literally placed in the hands of two people at any given time, but a testament to the capability of the Soviet Politburo and the American political system to…

Realistically, human civilization would still have survived a full scaled thermonuclear exchange during the height of the Cold War. Things would not have been great, but humanity would still have survived.

But you're much more likely to be born into a world where this event didn't happen.

The history of nuclear accidents is not a good indicator for the risk of nuclear war due to survivorship bias.

The fact that we haven't observed a nuclear war in history might have less to do with the likelihood of nuclear war and more with the fact that fewer people would be able to observe that history.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#45

Post by danso »

Jesus Christ...what a thing to read if you needed to not fall asleep for awhile. I think this is a perfect real-life example of Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"...the whole world has nearly been annihilated, several times over, due to most inexplicably benign human errors...and that's not even counting the errors of bureaucracy (such as the misreporting of Russian nuke capability, which let military officials press the need for an absurd number of excess warheads).

Also, this is the first time I can remember that I've ever seen a correction in a New Yorker article.

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#46

Post by dghf »

mootothemax wrote: post #39
lotsofmangos wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is much the same now, the UK doesn't have launch codes and operates the whole thing as a sort of dead-man's switch, apparently partly based on if the Today program has been broadcast on Radio 4. edit - we also used to rely on the AA's radio network - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/in-the-eve...

Is much the same now, the UK doesn't have launch codes and operates the whole thing as a sort of dead-man's switch, apparently partly based on if the Today program has been broadcast on Radio 4. Are you sure you're not confusing that with nuclear submarine commanders checking that BBC Radio 4's still broadcasting as part of their "is the country still there" checks? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_r…

Not really a confusion: if the letter of last resort (sealed orders to be opened in the event the Government is destroyed) says "launch the nukes", you do have a sort of dead man's switch, assuming the sub's captain follows the orders.

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#47

Post by tim333 »

naz wrote: post #7

> Mathias Rust had flown a rented Cessna, an airplane about the size of a Piper Cub, from Helsinki to Moscow and landed it a hundred yards from Red Square Are there people that know how big a Cub is, but don't know how big a Cessna is?

Cessnas do come in a variety of sizes.

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#48

Post by dghf »

mootothemax wrote: post #14

The UK's leaders wrote "Letters of last resort" to their nuclear submarine commanders, explaining what to do if the government was destroyed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort It's terrifying that nuclear war was considered likely enough to do this.

My understanding was they still do: I read somewhere (can't find the link now, sorry) that when the system was explained to Tony Blair on his second day in office, he went white.

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#50

Post by golergka »

_s wrote: post #23
axman6 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the terrists are real. Did you already forget 9/11, the greatest tragedy ever inflicted by man upon itself?

9/11 the greatest tragedy? I can think of much worse - though it could be argued if it weren't for 9/11 the world wouldn't be in the state it is in now.

I think that it may have been sarcastic.
Post reply on HN