Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction? • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#271

Post by baybal2 » Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 11:23 PM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #266

baybal2 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Full scale nuclear war means instant civilization collapse....full stop. Each China, and India has more people, and potentially more troop , than USA, and Russia combined. As I wrote before, the next third power in any massive war has an extreme incentive to stay neutral, to take the lead, or may well be land, after. You think that Xi, and Modi will stay still at the opportunity to do the biggest land grab in histo…

It's often assumed that, in an all-out nuclear exchange, everybody gets it, even if they haven't launched themselves yet. Because if you go down, you want all your potential opponents to be on the same level.

You now have 15+ potential opponents with standing armies big enough to win against anybody, but standing army of USA.

Attack them all, fully knowing that it will be a lottery of whose military will be more intact after?

Those who do, will be double idiots. Once for not shooting first, second for shooting last.

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#272

Post by mola » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 8:27 PM UTC

tylerjwilk00 wrote: post #239

mola wrote: post #198

This is just an argument against a straw man. Nuclear war, is bad, any mass killing is bad, any society collapse is bad. It means actual prolongated suffering for most humans. Nuclear caused extinction is actually a preferable outcome, I'd rather just instantly die than live in a brutal post sociatle apocalypse. It's like the back talk against climate warming, trying to down play it as a non extinction event. Well th…

Seriously!? Thank Darwin we had ancestors with thicker skin and stronger will. Nobody wants nuclear war or to live in the aftermath of it. However, should it ever happen I intend to do everything in my power to survive. Early humans endured terrible hardships so we had the privilege of building great comfortable societies. It's our duty to the future to keep carrying the flame.

Yes, seroiusly. It's our duty to not deteriorate back to the stone age. Why is planning for doom a better avenue than actively working to avoid doom and make the world more sustainably comfortable?

Re: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction?

#273

Post by mola » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 8:32 PM UTC

ralfd wrote: post #237

mola wrote: post #198

This is just an argument against a straw man. Nuclear war, is bad, any mass killing is bad, any society collapse is bad. It means actual prolongated suffering for most humans. Nuclear caused extinction is actually a preferable outcome, I'd rather just instantly die than live in a brutal post sociatle apocalypse. It's like the back talk against climate warming, trying to down play it as a non extinction event. Well th…

> Nuclear caused extinction is actually a preferable outcome Wtf? Strong disagree. Extinction is the end. Anything else is of course preferable as it means live goes on and civilization has the chance to rise again. > I'd rather just instantly die than live in a brutal post sociatle apocalypse. That is just because because you're weak, your bloodline is weak, and you will not survive the winter without central heatin…

Our winters here are pretty easy, and we don't have uber eats.

But seriously, my very near ancestors were strong, they survived the holocaust. Their life were miserable, with lingering effects even after the holocaust. I don't wish anyone to go through anything similar just to prove they're strong.

I agree that when things are tough giving up will kill you. But we should definitely not strive for tough times, these scar you and generations to come.

We should work for a future where we don't need to be extremely tough. We have the means and wits for that.