How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be
1–10 of 33 posts
Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be
#2Oh 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.
Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be
#3Is 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-...
Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be
#4Oh 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.
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 to talk about the use of nuclear weapons, it seems appropriate to continue reminding folks about what this actually entails. I suspect the average "let them try" commenter on Facebook/Twitter has very little concept of what this actually means.
If there's one category that warrants scary writing, nuclear war would be that category. It's pretty much impossible to explore the topic without touching on some rather terrifying implications.
Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be
#5Oh 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.
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.
Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be
#6Oh 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.
Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be
#7The 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 might just be too long.
Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be
#8A nuclear war wouldn’t eliminate all governments involved, so in some sense they are “winnable.” The best way to frame MAD is not that all nations involved are destroyed, but rather that a Malthusian trap is simultaneously triggered for all nations. Nuclear war destroys the global economy, without which we all no longer can specialize but must become generalist subsistence farmers. In this scenario many people die in a few weeks and most people die in a few years, but still some billions eke out a meager existence based on their geographical location and the difficulty of transitioning to a subsistence economy.
It should be noted that the author is not a military theorist, and that he assumes there is no ladder of escalation, most targets are countervalue, and that most strikes are groundbursts. There are also reasonable arguments[0] to be made that so-called “limited” nuclear war is the more likely outcome of nuclear engagement. The fact that not even this has been seen since 1945 suggests that even “limited” nuclear war is not in the interests of any nuclear powers today.
It must be emphasized that nuclear weapons are more of a political tool than a military one so long as the nuclear taboo holds. Countries whose international and domestic reputations depend on an appearance of indomitability may wish to emphasize their nuclear posture during times of military and political crisis. The purpose of which is at least partially to generate irrational discourse in foreign media.
In my opinion tensions were the highest when Biden made his “Armageddon” comment and have cooled substantially since then.
[0] https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780804790918...
Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be
#9The 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 need...)
Re: How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be
#10Oh 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.
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…
The problem with MAD is that its not MAD anymore. Given missile defense systems and hypersonic missiles it has actually become unclear whether the destruction will be mutual. Each side may believe that their tech can both penetrate the enemy and successfully defend.
Game theory shows us that war should only occur because of these unknowns (each side believes they will win). Thus given this new tech and the uncertainty on both sides, MAD is arguably weaker than ever before.