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

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#21

Post by simonblack »

"... but we're not using Strategic nukes, we only using Tactical nukes".

So where is the dividing line? When does a large Tactical Nuke become a small Strategic Nuke? It's all one spectrum. The use of a nuke is the use of a nuke. That's why there is a 'Use it or lose it' doctrine. Minutes after the first nuke is used, people will fire off everything they have.

Some people think a small tactical nuke can be 'got away with'. I'm extremely pessimistic about the world today. Nobody wins in a Nuclear War. I don't reckon we'll reach 2030.

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#22

Post by 1letterunixname »

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…

Nuclear Winter is a doomer idea. It can't happen.

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#23

Post by 1letterunixname »

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.

MAD prevents total conventional wars. Without unconventional weapons, China and Russia would invade far more countries without a second thought.

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#24

Post by 1letterunixname »

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.

Hand-waving conflation and mischaracterization. MAD kept you safe from total war and it cannot be setoff by accident. Permission link is required in the US implementation. It is terrible but it is a white elephant: it cannot be given away but it also is undesirable to keep but still necessary.

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#25

Post by simonblack »

time0ut wrote: post #3

Is it even possible for Russia to engage in an all out nuclear war at this point [0]? I don't want to find out, but it is an interesting question. [0] https://wesodonnell.medium.com/russias-nukes-probably-don-t-...

Judging by the way Russians are destroying the West's 'Wunderwaffe' with ease, I wouldn't stake my life on their Sarmat's and Poseidons being useless.

The Russians have a reputation for their weapons to be cheap, plentiful, effective and robust. As Stalin is reputed to have said,"Quantity has a quality all of its own."

Meanwhile both the Germans back then and the Americans now, prefer to have fragile, high-tech stuff that gets swamped by the greater numbers of 'good enough' Soviet/Russian stuff. It's no good having a weapon with a 100:1 kill-ratio, if the enemy can throw 101 weapons at it.

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#26

Post by hammyhavoc »

simonblack wrote: post #21

"... but we're not using Strategic nukes, we only using Tactical nukes". So where is the dividing line? When does a large Tactical Nuke become a small Strategic Nuke? It's all one spectrum. The use of a nuke is the use of a nuke. That's why there is a 'Use it or lose it' doctrine. Minutes after the first nuke is used, people will fire off everything they have. Some people think a small tactical nuke can be 'got away…

When we reach 2030, I'll raise a glass for you mate.

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#27

Post by time0ut »

simonblack wrote: post #25
time0ut wrote: post #3

Is it even possible for Russia to engage in an all out nuclear war at this point [0]? I don't want to find out, but it is an interesting question. [0] https://wesodonnell.medium.com/russias-nukes-probably-don-t-...

Judging by the way Russians are destroying the West's 'Wunderwaffe' with ease, I wouldn't stake my life on their Sarmat's and Poseidons being useless. The Russians have a reputation for their weapons to be cheap, plentiful, effective and robust. As Stalin is reputed to have said,"Quantity has a quality all of its own." Meanwhile both the Germans back then and the Americans now, prefer to have fragile, high-tech stuff…

Certainly a single Russian ICBM functioning correctly would be the worst disaster in human history and its a safe assumption at least some have been maintained. I do not want to find out the exact number. This article is talking about a full exchange with Russia as an example. In a purely academic sense, I think its interesting to speculate on if that can even happen.

> the way Russians are destroying the West's 'Wunderwaffe' with ease

Could you explain what you mean here? What examples do you have in mind?

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#28

Post by foxyv »

lilboiluvr69 wrote: post #20
foxyv wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Selling... checks Time Ads... A Honda Tool set and maybe a subscription.

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#29

Post by pomatius »

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…

What will happen regarding food: we (third world countries) will receive a massive wave of immigrants from those civilized first world countries who just mutually annihilated themselves like savages. This almost certainly will trigger further wars and famine around here. So yes, as the article says, there will be no winners. The entire world will lose.

Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

#30

Post by simonblack »

time0ut wrote: post #27
simonblack wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging by the way Russians are destroying the West's 'Wunderwaffe' with ease, I wouldn't stake my life on their Sarmat's and Poseidons being useless. The Russians have a reputation for their weapons to be cheap, plentiful, effective and robust. As Stalin is reputed to have said,"Quantity has a quality all of its own." Meanwhile both the Germans back then and the Americans now, prefer to have fragile, high-tech stuff…

Certainly a single Russian ICBM functioning correctly would be the worst disaster in human history and its a safe assumption at least some have been maintained. I do not want to find out the exact number. This article is talking about a full exchange with Russia as an example. In a purely academic sense, I think its interesting to speculate on if that can even happen. > the way Russians are destroying the West's 'Wun…

Examples of Western weapons that have been found wanting, and that were expected to be 'gamechangers':

Germany's Leopard 2 Tanks have been underwhelming in their achievements, and nowhere near as effective as proclaimed to be. And that's apart from the bad look of German Panzers crashing their way though the Ukrainian steppes in a replay of 1941. Just the thing to put a bit a steel in Russians' backbones.

Then there was the American Patriot air-defence system that couldn't even protect itself while expending 16 (or was it 32?) missiles. And the American HIMARS systems whose missiles routinely get intercepted

And we haven't heard much lately about the M777 artillery which were found to be very fragile when forced to 'shoot n scoot'. I've read somewhere that apparently the moving hooks are attached to the end of the barrel (!) instead of the wheeled-base and so causes stress on the still-hot barrels while towing during that shifting. And which routinely get taken out by Lancets.

Then there were the Turkish Bayraktars that were were so famous in the first weeks of the war. They are never heard about anymore, Thery just weren't up to the task.

And of course the anti-tank missiles which couldn't even punch a hole in the thin top armour of a tank when fired directly down on the tank from a bedroom window. And anyway, a lot of those had dead batteries too.

It's been said that Western weapons are designed to be profitable, and Russian weapons are designed to be effective. I'm rapidly being converted to that point of view. Tom Cruise and 'Top Gun' not withstanding.

Post reply on HN