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

How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#11

Post by moralestapia »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #9
sterlind wrote: post #7

The most surprising bit of this for me was nuclear winter. I thought the idea fell out of favor, but they cite a recent Nature paper claiming up to 99% of the population of the global North would starve. Do any governments stockpile food? Afaict, the US doesn't keep emergency stocks of non-perishables. Though according to the paper it would take ~8 years for food production to pick back up substantially, so that migh…

I don't think any government stockpiles enough food to keep a significant fraction of its population alive for nearly a decade. But in the US, on the Great Plains, there are all these towns with grain elevators. I'd guess that what's in that grain elevator could feed the population of the town (plus surrounding farms) for several years. (Yeah, I know, wheat or corn, by itself, doesn't have all the nutrients people ne…

If money/resources were no object, is it actually possible to store 10 years worth of food for, let's say, a single person?

I'd imagine almost everything, even perfectly stored would spoil by that timeframe.

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#13

Post by LinuxBender »

moralestapia wrote: post #11
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think any government stockpiles enough food to keep a significant fraction of its population alive for nearly a decade. But in the US, on the Great Plains, there are all these towns with grain elevators. I'd guess that what's in that grain elevator could feed the population of the town (plus surrounding farms) for several years. (Yeah, I know, wheat or corn, by itself, doesn't have all the nutrients people ne…

If money/resources were no object, is it actually possible to store 10 years worth of food for, let's say, a single person? I'd imagine almost everything, even perfectly stored would spoil by that timeframe.

If money/resources were no object

If money is no object then yes it can be done. One can order massive amounts of freeze dried food and store a lot of treated water. Officially it is good retaining 97% nutrients and taste for 25 years. Unofficially it's good until the container decomposes. I have enough to last about a year of daily consumption and that was a serious investment but has more nutritional value than gold or silver.

There are a few companies that can do custom orders and there is one consumer company that sells an assortment of different size freeze dryers [1]. Watch videos on how those work before contemplating getting one as they are noisy and involve time and effort. My local grocery store sells a few generic meat, egg and vegetable freeze dried foods, butter, beans, etc... Even some unhealthy stuff I guess for psychological effect as comfort food.

Nutristore [2] is one of the more affordable brands I get. Tastes better than MRE's from the 90's but can be bland. One must add their own desired seasonings or sauces. There are other brands that have better taste and more options but they also cost a lot more. All of this requires adding water. One should watch videos on how to properly treat water for prolonged storage.

[1] - https://harvestright.com/

[2] - https://nutristorefoods.com/

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#15

Post by matthewdgreen »

sterlind wrote: post #7

The most surprising bit of this for me was nuclear winter. I thought the idea fell out of favor, but they cite a recent Nature paper claiming up to 99% of the population of the global North would starve. Do any governments stockpile food? Afaict, the US doesn't keep emergency stocks of non-perishables. Though according to the paper it would take ~8 years for food production to pick back up substantially, so that migh…

A while back I noticed a motivated group of people on HN pushing very strong claims that the science of nuclear winter had been discredited. I did some reading to see if I could find any science backing their claims, and didn't find much that comforted me. (Basically some reasonable scientists argued that early estimates of nuclear winter were overblown, but their more reasonable calculations still showed full-scale nuclear war would be catastrophic.)

When I see many different people parroting the same unusual scientific claim on Internet sites, I tend to think there's a single source with an agenda. I hope this isn't true, because it made me worry that some organized group was trying to promote the idea that "nuclear war isn't so bad," which is... yikes.

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#16

Post by sillywalk »

deepspace wrote: post #12

Many people believe that the film "Threads" from 1984 is one of the most accurate depictions of the aftermath of a nuclear war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film)

I can also recommend The War Game[0] from the BBC.

"the effect of the film has been judged by the BBC to be too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting. It will, however, be shown to invited audiences..."

"The film eventually premiered at the National Film Theatre in London, on 13 April 1966, where it ran until 3 May.[4] It was then shown abroad at several film festivals, including the Venice one where it won the Special Prize. It also won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 1967."

[0] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Game

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#17

Post by foxyv »

BagelGuy wrote: post #6
foxyv wrote: post #2

Oh boy, here we go with the scare journalism again. Nuclear disarmament would be a great thing, but this garbage where we make entire generations live in fear of annihilation to sell (Checks Time ads) Flextra Solar panels... No thank you Time.

Humanity built a suicidal doomsday machine that can be set off by accident. It's not scare journalism to remind people of this.

It IS scare journalism to remind people of this. We use fear, uncertainty, and doubt to sell people magazines and Solar panels. It's part of why we spend $800 billion on military spending in the US. It's part of why these weapons exist in the first place.

No thank you!

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#19

Post by throwawaymobule »

sillywalk wrote: post #18

If it comes to it by accident, or by shitheads, I'd hope I was instantly incinerated, rather than basically any other option, to include surviving perfectly intact.

Any reason you can't handle that yourself, if it comes to it? Being atomized faster than your nerves fire does sound like the way to go though.

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#20

Post by lilboiluvr69 »

foxyv wrote: post #5
haswell wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This piece doesn't even mention disarmament, and the stated purpose amounts to: when more people understand the consequences of MAD, it's less likely to happen. As time goes on, the current generation will become more and more removed from the original conditions that resulted in the nuclear arms race, and more disconnected from the potential realities that nuclear war could introduce. At a time when Russia continues…

I suspect that most of the "Let them try" commenters are plain idiots or trolls. Anyone with half a brain knows what nuclear war means. These articles aren't educational. They are FUD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt

I don't understand your comment. FUD for what?
Post reply on HN