Nukes of Hazard (2013) • Hacker News Board

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#101

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 2:53 PM UTC

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…

>I suspect, but cannot prove, the wikipedia number is more likely to be correct.

The Wikipedia number is not correct, because even a single blast has long term consequences, and in a full scale war, the consequences are more significant than the initial damage.

Even if the blast was just one a of a handful, survivors would have to contend with fallout from other detonations, followed by nuclear winter, followed by years of famine, mutation, cancer, and other diseases.

In a full scale war, nukes are targeted at nuke power plants, so there would be even more fallout - enough to sterilise many parts of the US.

Initial casualties would be a small percentage of the eventual total.

Even a limited exchange in a distant part of the world would have global consequences. See e.g.

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-nuclear-war-civilization-famine...

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#102

Post by mfisher87 » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 2:54 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #74

Rapzid wrote: post #43

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. Con…

> The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMDs. Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to h…

> I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it.

Logical fallacy: Appeal to emotion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#103

Post by rayiner » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 2:57 PM UTC

Perseids wrote: post #82

simonh wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMDs. Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to h…

> Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it. Seriously? There ought to be something analogously to Godwin’s law to declare discussions lost after this class of arguments. To answer in kind: "I'd like to ask how you would explain the proportionality of the…

> Emotional arguments quickly become ridiculous if you leave out the greater effects to society and the relative danger of the threat.

No, but numerical arguments quickly become ridiculous when you ignore the fact that the emotional reaction of the nation to 3,000 Americans killed in a terrorist act is itself a physically cognizable phenomenon that must be given due weight in the analysis.

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#104

Post by arethuza » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 2:57 PM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #93

kghose wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This attitude is part of 'better to be dead than a slave'. I think many people saw what the Nazis did in the occupied territories and their thinking was influenced by that (extending it to, what would happen if the Soviets invaded our lands).

By the 70s and 80s, people knew (or had the option to know - many chose not to know) what the Soviets did to people at home, so it wasn't totally out of whack to assume what would happen if they invaded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Day_in_the_Life_of_Ivan_De...

Well, had it been my choice between a nuclear war where 90%-95% of the population of the UK would have died in optimistic scenarios and surrendering to the Soviets (and yes, I am fully aware of how badly they treated people in their own country and the countries they controlled) I know which one I would have chosen.

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#105

Post by refurb » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 2:59 PM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #100

simonh wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMDs. Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to h…

"I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it." Shark attacks are statistically rare. Lightning strikes (of a human) are statistically rare. Adrenocortical carcinoma is statistically rare. Having to explain this to the family of a victim doesn't change that fact. In 20…

I think comparing 9/11 to events like heart attacks and car accidents is silly.

There is a big difference between the loss of 3000 people due to a deliberate attack on your country and the loss of 300,000 people due to heart attacks.

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#106

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 3:01 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #41

arethuza wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think anyone knows what would happen to an area after 400 detonations.

My (wild) guess is that you'd get a blob of extremely hot rock melting its way down through the crust and enough fallout to sterilise the Northern hemisphere.

So kind of a dumb idea from a strategic point of view.

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#107

Post by gone35 » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 3:03 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #74

Rapzid wrote: post #43

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. Con…

> The threat of attack at any time. Constant fear. All so people could build their little empires inside the military and intelligence communities. I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union did exist, and actually did have WMDs. Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to h…

Similarly, I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers.

This is how: in that year alone, 2001, over 10000 people were killed by gun homicides in the US --over three times as many random, pointless deaths as 9/11. Last year, there were over 15000: an increase of nearly twice as many families mourning the senseless death of their loved ones as the 9/11 families, but every year.

And twice as many people every year die of car accidents --sudden, random, untimely deaths. Every year.

These are inconceivable amounts of suffering, of mourning families and communities rent apart: almost as if the population of an entire mid-sized town got randomly obliterated every year.

And then consider that, in their name, hundreds of thousands of other innocent families around the globe have gone through --and still go through-- their very same suffering on that day: losing their loved ones to unimaginably violent attacks out of nowhere, absurdly justified by some abstract, foreign notion --collateral damage, preventive strike, what not.

The numbers don't lie. As a society, sooner or later we will have to come to terms precisely with the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism, and the grotesque price we have inflicted the world (and ourselves) with.

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#108

Post by jackpirate » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 3:06 PM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #93

kghose wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This attitude is part of 'better to be dead than a slave'. I think many people saw what the Nazis did in the occupied territories and their thinking was influenced by that (extending it to, what would happen if the Soviets invaded our lands).

By the 70s and 80s, people knew (or had the option to know - many chose not to know) what the Soviets did to people at home, so it wasn't totally out of whack to assume what would happen if they invaded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Day_in_the_Life_of_Ivan_De...

People often forget how awful the west treated the bottom of its society at the time. For a black in the South, the soviet union (or more likely Cuba/communist latin country) probably looked pretty good.

That's not to excuse or downplay these country's mistakes. Let's just not forget our own.

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#109

Post by mseebach » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 3:09 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #104

mseebach wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the 70s and 80s, people knew (or had the option to know - many chose not to know) what the Soviets did to people at home, so it wasn't totally out of whack to assume what would happen if they invaded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Day_in_the_Life_of_Ivan_De...

Well, had it been my choice between a nuclear war where 90%-95% of the population of the UK would have died in optimistic scenarios and surrendering to the Soviets (and yes, I am fully aware of how badly they treated people in their own country and the countries they controlled) I know which one I would have chosen.

But that wasn't what the choice was.

It was between maintaining the capability of such a nuclear war to deter aggression, and not maintaining it and surely having been invaded by the Soviets.

For the madness that MAD was, for all intents and purposes, it actually worked.

Re: Nukes of Hazard (2013)

#110

Post by e40 » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 3:13 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #105

dllthomas wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'd like to ask how you would explain the statistical ridiculousness of terrorism to the families of the thousands of people that died in the twin towers. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear it." Shark attacks are statistically rare. Lightning strikes (of a human) are statistically rare. Adrenocortical carcinoma is statistically rare. Having to explain this to the family of a victim doesn't change that fact. In 20…

I think comparing 9/11 to events like heart attacks and car accidents is silly. There is a big difference between the loss of 3000 people due to a deliberate attack on your country and the loss of 300,000 people due to heart attacks.

Agreed. Losing 300,000 is much worse.