Reducing the risk of nuclear war should be a key concern of our generation(ourworldindata.org)
ourworldindata.org
Reducing the risk of nuclear war should be a key concern of our generation
https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-weapons-risk
225 comments
People give a shit now because it’s a major escalation with a nuclear power. That was not true with their invasion in Georgia or the previous incursions in Ukraine. This is a genuinely newsworthy and alarming event, I’m not sure what you expect the media to do when things like this happen.
What's the escalation? The European and American responses to Russia? It's the media stoking those responses
Otherwise, this is the same conflict escalation as russia's invasion of Georgia and annexation of crimea. It's not like Russia wasn't a nuclear power a few years ago
Otherwise, this is the same conflict escalation as russia's invasion of Georgia and annexation of crimea. It's not like Russia wasn't a nuclear power a few years ago
The Boy Who Cried Wolf comes to mind. When everything is an emergency, nothing is.
Someone who always cries "sheep" and keeps asserting genuine issues are "just the flu" or "Russia won't invade" is similarly problematic.
Whataboutism. The answer to one problem isn't to say "but what about this other problem." The problem we're discussing here is the endless fear porn on the news and social media.
The post upthread asserted COVID and Ukraine were examples of "fear porn". You chimed in with "crying wolf" about emergencies. It's hardly whataboutism to point out that these are actual emergencies, and that media coverage of them should be expected.
That's the point of the "crying wolf" story: the boy cried wolf so many times, that when a wolf (emergency) actually appeared, the townsfolk response was not appropriate. That's the risk you run when every story is hyped up for maximum engagement.
Then you go about banning commercial news. Short of that don't expect anything to change. The risk the for profit news station runs by not hyping everything to the max is loss of profit.
In the meantime there are many things in this world that have the potential to become very dangerous, but because people notice and do something about that, said terrible event doesn't happen.
In the meantime there are many things in this world that have the potential to become very dangerous, but because people notice and do something about that, said terrible event doesn't happen.
There are just active disinformation campaigns all over the place to do that. They want to overload our cognitive capacities to reason and find middle ground.
I think that's absolutely true when it comes to the media's treatment of past outbreaks, but that doesn't apply to the situation in Ukraine, it's the opposite. The mainstream did not take the threat of Russian aggression very seriously, even in Ukraine. Also the people pointing to the nuclear threat are urging calm, the opposite of your typical "boy who cried wolf" scenario.
Not pushing the break when you are driving directly into a wall at high velocity is not crying wolf, it is common sense.
It is only comparable to crying wolf if there is no wall or if you are going so slow that you could just calmy reduce the speed instead of alarming people — if you are actually in control of the vehicle. If you are not in a car, but on a huge ship the wall can be further out and the speed can be lower and suddenly crying wolf becomes a high paid job. Climate change is like a big oil tanker: if we want to stop in 30 years we need to hit the break now.
The nuclear crisis is different, because there is no clear defined path, but the risk of nuclear war is not zero.
It is only comparable to crying wolf if there is no wall or if you are going so slow that you could just calmy reduce the speed instead of alarming people — if you are actually in control of the vehicle. If you are not in a car, but on a huge ship the wall can be further out and the speed can be lower and suddenly crying wolf becomes a high paid job. Climate change is like a big oil tanker: if we want to stop in 30 years we need to hit the break now.
The nuclear crisis is different, because there is no clear defined path, but the risk of nuclear war is not zero.
Sorry but you're trying to correlate unrelated concepts here. It still holds true that humanity has never been more informed about events in almost real-time. Sure the media wants to make profit, but that doesnt change the fact that a nuclear power is blowing up civilians right next to mainland Europe right now.
> We went from mass societal panic about Covid to mass societal panic about Ukraine basically without skipping a beat and few people notice how their energy was redirected so seamlessly.
Could it have to do with the fact that covid is the biggest pandemic in hundred years and that the UN Security Council had to call an emergency special session for the first time in 40 years because of Ukraine.
If these are not good reasons for "fear-porn", what do you think would be?
Could it have to do with the fact that covid is the biggest pandemic in hundred years and that the UN Security Council had to call an emergency special session for the first time in 40 years because of Ukraine.
If these are not good reasons for "fear-porn", what do you think would be?
Covid for 90% of the population was never something to have fear over. Something to be cautious about yes but the range of sheer panic among people under 40 in good health that i met was beyond silly.
I don’t trust the media anymore on anything. Every article they print that i have deep knowledge about or insider information on is so wrong as to be malicious.
Read the news to get an idea of what is going on but any opinion they present and most facts are pure bullshit.
I don’t trust the media anymore on anything. Every article they print that i have deep knowledge about or insider information on is so wrong as to be malicious.
Read the news to get an idea of what is going on but any opinion they present and most facts are pure bullshit.
I don’t ever remember the fear of covid among informed people being the mortality risk of under 40’s.
I do remember the covid fear being the collapse of the healthcare system due to under-resourced hospitals being stretched to thin from the rate of hospitalization of covid cases. I also know that people did die from being crowded out by covid patients.
I do remember the covid fear being the collapse of the healthcare system due to under-resourced hospitals being stretched to thin from the rate of hospitalization of covid cases. I also know that people did die from being crowded out by covid patients.
> Covid for 90% of the population was never something to have fear over. Something to be cautious about yes but the range of sheer panic among people under 40 in good health that i met was beyond silly.
To me the fear seemed mostly directed to local health infrastructure being in a position of crumbling down under the case load, which still holds true in many places. Can't speak for every country, but over here we're still one wave large enough away from overloading our ICUs. Each wave brought us extremely close to the cutoff.
To me the fear seemed mostly directed to local health infrastructure being in a position of crumbling down under the case load, which still holds true in many places. Can't speak for every country, but over here we're still one wave large enough away from overloading our ICUs. Each wave brought us extremely close to the cutoff.
There was a summer when we didn't know what the hell the virus was going to do. Where hospitals were overflowing so much that if a young person got in a car accident they'd sit in an ambulance. Or if they got the sniffles and hugged their mom they'd kill her.
I'm starting to distrust any person who claims to distrust the media over covid.
I'm starting to distrust any person who claims to distrust the media over covid.
> I'm starting to distrust any person who claims to distrust the media over covid.
We know more than we ever have about the virus but we’re still pushing bullshit mandates. It’s over, time to move on.
We know more than we ever have about the virus but we’re still pushing bullshit mandates. It’s over, time to move on.
[deleted]
Some people are pushing mandates, many aren't. And there was a time when mandates made sense. There may likely be a time in the future when a mandate would make sense again.
> there was a summer…
Yes. A summer. Not two years.
Yes. A summer. Not two years.
I would say that we had a spring even. Because by the summer with the whole world taking to the streets over George Floyd, it seemed pretty much like we weren’t going to have a major problem.
[deleted]
Sadly it proves the point in a perverse way: we're so used to everything being important that we/some got desensitized and no longer perceive the true scale of things. (The boy who cried wolf, etc)
That doesn’t make any sense at all.
I agree; it's utterly irrational; yet I literally hear a non small number of people around me living and thinking like that
There's no contradiction between thinking fear porn is bad and thinking nuclear war is a real and horrible risk.
Sure. But there are at least 20 things I'm more worried about than nuclear war. You've got to have a very lax definition of 'key concern' to include your 21st-ranked worry.
There are a lot of things I'm more worried about than an asteroid hitting earth, but I rather we develop technology that could avoid it from occurring because if it does happen it could drive us extinct.
You seem unable to comprehend and classify that there are existential threats and that you have to focus on them some but not too much.
You seem unable to comprehend and classify that there are existential threats and that you have to focus on them some but not too much.
We have a major war on our doorstep, a humanitarian catastrophe and very likely millions of refugees. That is certainly a real cause for worry.
[deleted]
Reflecting on what will be the greater challenge for my kids: avoiding emotional overreaction to the media's business model
...or climate change.
20 years ago I’d have agreed.
Now? Now my gut feeling is that climate change is mostly going to be OK — bad stuff will still happen, but I don’t expect catastrophic variation from what would’ve happened otherwise, because PV is rapidly growing in quantity (literally exponentially) and batteries are rapidly getting cheaper.
Plenty of other unsustainable things about our economy besides greenhouse gases of course.
But I’m more worried than I used to be about journalists and propagandists both separately A/B testing their ways to the most potent methods to effect specific emotional affects, at which point we all go to war because of something which despite being objectively stupid is also something which enough people feel is a fundamental truth of nature they’re willing to kill and to die for.
A more extreme version of https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc
Now? Now my gut feeling is that climate change is mostly going to be OK — bad stuff will still happen, but I don’t expect catastrophic variation from what would’ve happened otherwise, because PV is rapidly growing in quantity (literally exponentially) and batteries are rapidly getting cheaper.
Plenty of other unsustainable things about our economy besides greenhouse gases of course.
But I’m more worried than I used to be about journalists and propagandists both separately A/B testing their ways to the most potent methods to effect specific emotional affects, at which point we all go to war because of something which despite being objectively stupid is also something which enough people feel is a fundamental truth of nature they’re willing to kill and to die for.
A more extreme version of https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc
Why would you go with "gut feeling" instead of IPCC AR6?
The elevator pitch summary of IPCC AR6 is “It is only possible to avoid warming of 1.5 °C if massive and immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are made”.
I am saying “I think those cuts are extremely likely to happen, and soon”.
I am saying “I think those cuts are extremely likely to happen, and soon”.
Soon is still a lot later than immediate. And they won't be that large because even cheap PV needs time to be manufactured in large enough quantities to matter.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PV_cume_semi_log_c...
An order of magnitude every 5 to 10 years is faster than I think you’re giving credit for.
I’m expecting the peak capacity of just PV to exceed world electricity demand this decade, and actual output (rain, night, being put on cars parked in shade) to exceed current global electricity demand early next decade as more stuff gets electrified.
I expect a slowdown in growth after that point, but I don’t have any intuition about when exactly.
And of course we need so much reduction that the long term goal is “everything everywhere in every sector except half the livestock methane” or “everything in really all sectors worldwide except for North Korea”; yet halving output doubles the time available to make the next step, so even there I am optimistic.
An order of magnitude every 5 to 10 years is faster than I think you’re giving credit for.
I’m expecting the peak capacity of just PV to exceed world electricity demand this decade, and actual output (rain, night, being put on cars parked in shade) to exceed current global electricity demand early next decade as more stuff gets electrified.
I expect a slowdown in growth after that point, but I don’t have any intuition about when exactly.
And of course we need so much reduction that the long term goal is “everything everywhere in every sector except half the livestock methane” or “everything in really all sectors worldwide except for North Korea”; yet halving output doubles the time available to make the next step, so even there I am optimistic.
Can't wait for a few more decades of "50 years of failed climate predictions".
That said, there is plenty of tech being developed to improve global warming, so that rich mega corporation won't have to abandon their fancy offices and villas on the seaside.
The real ecological catastrophe will be plastic, the recycling scam (approved by governments and paid with oil money) really sold plastic to people and now we have microplastic everywhere - including our body.
Hopefully governments won't stifle innovation too much so that the private sector will come up with a tech solution.
That said, there is plenty of tech being developed to improve global warming, so that rich mega corporation won't have to abandon their fancy offices and villas on the seaside.
The real ecological catastrophe will be plastic, the recycling scam (approved by governments and paid with oil money) really sold plastic to people and now we have microplastic everywhere - including our body.
Hopefully governments won't stifle innovation too much so that the private sector will come up with a tech solution.
I'm fairly sure it is not. Climate change is actually a good example, it has been blown out of all proportions by both politicians as well as media which has led a large number of children and young adults to start worrying whether they will have a future at all before they will die from starvation/drowning/heat shock/fill-in-the-blanks. Slightly older young adults state they do not want to get children "since they will not have a future on a dying planet", all being egged on by "Extinction Rebellion"-like prophets of doom in the media.
They are your children so it is your responsibility to make sure they learn to separate panic porn and propaganda from believable prognoses on things like war, natural phenomena, changing climate and its ramifications and more. Get some books on the subject - Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never", Bjørn Lomborg's "False Alarm", Steven Koonin's "Unsettled" and read up on the facts and fictional narratives around the subject of the changing climate. If you are not in panic-mode they are far less likely to be pulled into the fable of a climate-induced eschaton. Teach them critical thinking skills - that is true critical thinking, not "critical theory" thinking which is actually the opposite of what I'm getting at. Help them on their way of navigating through the rapids of their formative years and they'll be stronger and more self-reliant on the other side.
They are your children so it is your responsibility to make sure they learn to separate panic porn and propaganda from believable prognoses on things like war, natural phenomena, changing climate and its ramifications and more. Get some books on the subject - Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never", Bjørn Lomborg's "False Alarm", Steven Koonin's "Unsettled" and read up on the facts and fictional narratives around the subject of the changing climate. If you are not in panic-mode they are far less likely to be pulled into the fable of a climate-induced eschaton. Teach them critical thinking skills - that is true critical thinking, not "critical theory" thinking which is actually the opposite of what I'm getting at. Help them on their way of navigating through the rapids of their formative years and they'll be stronger and more self-reliant on the other side.
Your list of source books is telling: you have a PR person with a history of being sloppy with the truth in service of conservative political goals, a political science major who has made a great deal of money from conservative funders but whose articles do not meet scientific levels of rigor and are routinely ripped apart by actual scientists, and a theoretical physicist who was a C-level officer at a fossil fuel company (BP). Beyond the lack of domain experience, what all three of those have in common is work which is widely recognized as being based on cherry-picking, misrepresenting climate scientists' claims and goals, and, especially, studiously ignoring how climate scientists' predictions from decades ago have held up well while the various deniers have rotated through a series of poorly-supported explanations with no coherent linking philosophy other than that climate change cannot be real because otherwise their funders might be expected to pay damages.
Did you read those books?
Thought so.
You did, and you come up with this response? Read them again, but now without those ideologically-tainted glasses. Show me where they're totally off-base and I will listen.
By the way, if you had read them - which you have not - you would have known that none of these authors claim that the climate does not change, nor do they claim that human activity does not have any influence on climate change. What these authors - and many others - do not share is the conviction, nay, the sheer joy of the "climate apocalypse". This I have in common with them and with many others - but you... seem to differ?
Read those books, and others. Think for yourself. Don't just blindly follow the man with the sign "the world is coming to its end, repent!". Don't drink the Kool-Aid.
Thought so.
You did, and you come up with this response? Read them again, but now without those ideologically-tainted glasses. Show me where they're totally off-base and I will listen.
By the way, if you had read them - which you have not - you would have known that none of these authors claim that the climate does not change, nor do they claim that human activity does not have any influence on climate change. What these authors - and many others - do not share is the conviction, nay, the sheer joy of the "climate apocalypse". This I have in common with them and with many others - but you... seem to differ?
Read those books, and others. Think for yourself. Don't just blindly follow the man with the sign "the world is coming to its end, repent!". Don't drink the Kool-Aid.
Well, I don't still have my copy of the Skeptical Environmentalist (moving cross country does that) but I bought the hard-cover when it came out because the ideologically-tainted glasses I was wearing were those of a young libertarian who loved the idea of the experts being wrong but hadn't yet learned to be just as skeptical of the knowledgeable-sounding people who were saying that.
One of the big things to look at is track record: the reports by real scientists from the 1980s and 1990s have predictions which include the present and those numbers have been pretty accurate. For example, this is fully a decade old:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/12/ipccs-climate-projec...
The people saying “no big deal, don't worry about it” have not had the same track record. More importantly, however, is being small-c conservative: if we get rid of high pollution fuel sources it'll definitely mean less profit for the people who fund those authors’ work but for most of us the effects will be better health and living conditions with manageably higher costs in a few areas and savings in others (buying an EV instead of a big ICE SUV is a TCO savings, for example, and ditching my natural gas for a modern heat-pump saved more summer AC than it costs in the winter).
In contrast, the approach of doing as little as as the fossil fuel industry wants is guaranteed to produce much greater costs and in many cases the random nature of those makes it much harder to mitigate, especially since a lot of people who primarily hear from deniers will resist any changes until it's their personal basement flooding.
One of the big things to look at is track record: the reports by real scientists from the 1980s and 1990s have predictions which include the present and those numbers have been pretty accurate. For example, this is fully a decade old:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/12/ipccs-climate-projec...
The people saying “no big deal, don't worry about it” have not had the same track record. More importantly, however, is being small-c conservative: if we get rid of high pollution fuel sources it'll definitely mean less profit for the people who fund those authors’ work but for most of us the effects will be better health and living conditions with manageably higher costs in a few areas and savings in others (buying an EV instead of a big ICE SUV is a TCO savings, for example, and ditching my natural gas for a modern heat-pump saved more summer AC than it costs in the winter).
In contrast, the approach of doing as little as as the fossil fuel industry wants is guaranteed to produce much greater costs and in many cases the random nature of those makes it much harder to mitigate, especially since a lot of people who primarily hear from deniers will resist any changes until it's their personal basement flooding.
So your point is basically to teach your kids to be climate change deniers? And your supporting evidence is a reading list of pop-science books none of which were written by actual climate scientists?
Sounds like you need to apply a bit more of that "Critical thinking" you're going on about, as if your reading list is anything to go by, you're not really being all that "critical" but rather seeking out sources of information that confirms your existing biases.
Sounds like you need to apply a bit more of that "Critical thinking" you're going on about, as if your reading list is anything to go by, you're not really being all that "critical" but rather seeking out sources of information that confirms your existing biases.
You are professing a religion when you're talking in terms of "climate change deniers". It is the same primal urge which makes people call others "anti-vaxxers" even though they've had the full spectrum of vaccinations except that single one. Us versus them, good versus evil, the chosen versus the damned. I prefer to think and live in more than just 2 dimensions, the third one making it possible to take some distance and study the subject. My daughters don't believe the world will go under in a climate catastrophe, nor should they. They also learn to respect their environment. They do not crave after plastic trinkets or the latest phone.
I'm fairly sure our "energy footprint" is lower than yours so if anything I should call for you to "repent, sinner!". But I won't and I'll grant you your religion just as long as you grant me the freedom of it.
I'm fairly sure our "energy footprint" is lower than yours so if anything I should call for you to "repent, sinner!". But I won't and I'll grant you your religion just as long as you grant me the freedom of it.
The problem is not that climate change will hurt everybody. Many areas will be just fine.
But many others won't, and the people that lived there will need somewhere else to live, and productivity resources in that area are gone. That's going to be a lot of refugees needing a place in the world that's already struggling to provide for all of us.
All this will make the world a lot more unstable politically and economically. And just look at the news today to see how well we're getting along before any of this really kicked in...
But many others won't, and the people that lived there will need somewhere else to live, and productivity resources in that area are gone. That's going to be a lot of refugees needing a place in the world that's already struggling to provide for all of us.
All this will make the world a lot more unstable politically and economically. And just look at the news today to see how well we're getting along before any of this really kicked in...
I've started to see a lot of burnout on my social media, of posts like "It's ok to take a break from the news" and "It's ok to not participate and focus on your mental health." These are coming from people who are typically very active in the social justice space. The news endlessly shifting from one emergency to another is burning them out, which is saying a lot.
Infotainment has become very toxic. It's not simply a cold front, its "tHe pOlAr VorTeX". It's not an interesting asteroid, is "cOulD tHiS AstERoiD iMpAct eArTH iN 2027?".
Between this and all the blatant manipulation on social networks, it's a necessity to take a break from all this madness before it sucks you into it.
Between this and all the blatant manipulation on social networks, it's a necessity to take a break from all this madness before it sucks you into it.
There are also extremely successful and highly productive long term disinformation campaigns. I noticed a notable shift in decreased disinformation when the war started and Twitter cut off Russia for instance and similarly even before that when they cut off Trump.
[deleted]
i resonate with your comment
every 2 weeks its some new crisis in the news. I try to avoid it because it just consumes my energy and im not contributing to helping anyway. Maybe im jaded but it feels like i should experience the life i have before me, instead of constantly being pulled one direction or another based on 2week news cycle.
lately though, i notice that people close to me are soliciting this info to me regardless of whether i ask or not. My whole family, the 2nd topic after "hello" is "X thing happened in the news isnt that crazy!?" and other folks get upset if i dont have an opinion about X thing.
every 2 weeks its some new crisis in the news. I try to avoid it because it just consumes my energy and im not contributing to helping anyway. Maybe im jaded but it feels like i should experience the life i have before me, instead of constantly being pulled one direction or another based on 2week news cycle.
lately though, i notice that people close to me are soliciting this info to me regardless of whether i ask or not. My whole family, the 2nd topic after "hello" is "X thing happened in the news isnt that crazy!?" and other folks get upset if i dont have an opinion about X thing.
I agree that we should learn not to overreact, but I also think that social media plays an integral role in the quality (or lack thereof) of our discourse.
Research shows that hate is the most virulent type of content that spreads on Twitter and there’s a whole cohort of Twitter employees and investors that have an interest in advancing that business. Same thing with Facebook.
There’s a tremendous amount of money to be made by our own industry to drum up this fear and anxiety, we can’t just blame it all on the anchors sitting behind the desks. The platforms are culpable as well.
Research shows that hate is the most virulent type of content that spreads on Twitter and there’s a whole cohort of Twitter employees and investors that have an interest in advancing that business. Same thing with Facebook.
There’s a tremendous amount of money to be made by our own industry to drum up this fear and anxiety, we can’t just blame it all on the anchors sitting behind the desks. The platforms are culpable as well.
[deleted]
I sincerely don't understand this line of reasoning. Are the negative consequences of overmediatization and people having too much empathy in the moment really what we should focus on? If so what are those consequences exactly? It feels like a counterproductive leveling down argument. Instead of dumbing down every event to its worldly relativistic place, we could seize the opportunities to rise, try to question and inform ourselves and let people who want to rearrange their priorities do so. There is no world roadmap with a ubiquitous world product owner incentivized to handle its rational prioritization.
Or serious problems do exist and for the most part we are shielded from them.
To be fair, both COVID and nuclear threats are very legitimate issues. We can’t deny that we are living in a dark period.
More Americans have died from COVID than all American soldiers lost in combat in all military engagements combined in our history, and we like our wars. We surpassed that figure last summer, so we’re way past it at this point.
We’re also consciously considering the possibility of nuclear war again, which came very close to happening the last time we engaged with Russia.
More Americans have died from COVID than all American soldiers lost in combat in all military engagements combined in our history, and we like our wars. We surpassed that figure last summer, so we’re way past it at this point.
We’re also consciously considering the possibility of nuclear war again, which came very close to happening the last time we engaged with Russia.
> More Americans have died from COVID than all American soldiers lost in combat in all military engagements combined in our history, and we like our wars
What happens to that comparison if you look at years of life lost rather than deaths that coincided with a covid infection?
I don't know, but I have to assume it's not even close. Covid seemed (in the average case, of course there were exceptions) to push people who were near their life expectancy over the edge, whereas war takes young people with full healthy lives ahead of them and either kills or permanently damages them.
What happens to that comparison if you look at years of life lost rather than deaths that coincided with a covid infection?
I don't know, but I have to assume it's not even close. Covid seemed (in the average case, of course there were exceptions) to push people who were near their life expectancy over the edge, whereas war takes young people with full healthy lives ahead of them and either kills or permanently damages them.
I don't think we can clearly state covid deaths were counted correctly.
There are many odd thing with the numbers, eg. no-one died of the flu during covid because they were all counted as covid, not to mention the emergency measures (I know of at least 2 european countries where this happened) that allowed even just presumption of covid to be counted as covid deaths, without a proper autopsy or the financial incentive that some hospitals / state actors had in having a certain number of covid deaths in order to get compensation.
The age at which people died also matters. If covid just sped up the death of old people we lost significantly less years of life as a society than when young soldiers die.
Overall if we focused on improving cardiovascular diseases or traffic related deaths instead of scrambling making emergency vaccines for covid, I believe we would have saved more years of life as a whole.
Nuclear threats are just threats - if anyone actually fire nukes both sides would die.
They're great for making your enemy panic and don't bother you during invasions, though.
There are many odd thing with the numbers, eg. no-one died of the flu during covid because they were all counted as covid, not to mention the emergency measures (I know of at least 2 european countries where this happened) that allowed even just presumption of covid to be counted as covid deaths, without a proper autopsy or the financial incentive that some hospitals / state actors had in having a certain number of covid deaths in order to get compensation.
The age at which people died also matters. If covid just sped up the death of old people we lost significantly less years of life as a society than when young soldiers die.
Overall if we focused on improving cardiovascular diseases or traffic related deaths instead of scrambling making emergency vaccines for covid, I believe we would have saved more years of life as a whole.
Nuclear threats are just threats - if anyone actually fire nukes both sides would die.
They're great for making your enemy panic and don't bother you during invasions, though.
> mass societal panic about Covid
If anyone with clairvoyance predicted in 2018 that one million Americans would die from a contagious disease, while a third of the population would go on protesting anti-spread measures and wouldn't even let their kids vaccinated ...
... it would have been widely panned as unrealistic disaster porn aiming to undermine Americans' social trust.
Sometimes a disaster is actually a disaster.
If anyone with clairvoyance predicted in 2018 that one million Americans would die from a contagious disease, while a third of the population would go on protesting anti-spread measures and wouldn't even let their kids vaccinated ...
... it would have been widely panned as unrealistic disaster porn aiming to undermine Americans' social trust.
Sometimes a disaster is actually a disaster.
In 2018 everyone who pays attention knew that hundreds of thousands of people in our country would die every year from a contagious disease, also known as the flu.
You seem to be of the mind that you can somehow stop the spread of Covid, you can't. We have not been able to stop any respiratory virus from spreading EVER. Your vaccines will only limit the effects of the virus on you if you get it. It will in no way stop you from spreading it.
You seem to be of the mind that you can somehow stop the spread of Covid, you can't. We have not been able to stop any respiratory virus from spreading EVER. Your vaccines will only limit the effects of the virus on you if you get it. It will in no way stop you from spreading it.
No one who pays attention would have predicted hundreds of thousands of Americans dying from influenza, because in the last decade, it has never happened.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
The high-end of yearly flu deaths is in the low 50,000s, while the low-end is just over 10,000. COVID has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans each year.
You're not just misinformed about vaccines, you're outright lying about numbers that can be easily Googled.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
The high-end of yearly flu deaths is in the low 50,000s, while the low-end is just over 10,000. COVID has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans each year.
You're not just misinformed about vaccines, you're outright lying about numbers that can be easily Googled.
It's politics driven by access journalism, constant press releases, and simple covert placement of deceptive news stories in tiny outlets to allow larger outlets to amplify those stories under the guise of metareporting.
We're currently on the tail end of en engineered media panic about an epidemic of shoplifting.
That's just how things are going to be now, people are so cynical about all media that they don't believe anything that comes from anywhere other than their own personal fandoms. But their own fandoms are just injecting the same propaganda directly into their veins.
The thing that's been most astounding to me is that the most militant about Ukraine in the US seem to completely overlap with the most Democratic/Republican hyperpartisan types, and each characterize extreme concern about the sovereignty of Ukraine as something that their respective parties own, and identify lack of appropriate concern about the sovereignty of Ukraine with the opposite party; the Republicans are traitorous Trumpian Soviet spies who deserve execution or exile, and the Democrats are peacenik anti-interventionist cowards who are holding back the military.
I suspect that's an incidental observation - because the main thing that hyperpartisans and Ukraine hysterics have in common is extreme consumption of television news.
Which is why they're so much less concerned about Yemen (which has been pointed out a ton), and why they have no historical background on the situation (because you had to read to know about the constant attempts of NATO expansion to Ukraine and the obvious problems with that, it wasn't something you could just pick up while changing channels.) The analogies between NATO expansion to Ukraine and the Cuban Missile Crisis are lost on people who don't know why NATO exists, and who don't actually know about the Cuban Missile Crisis other than it had something to do with Cuba, missiles, and the Soviet Union.
This world is still the same world where decisions are made by royalty, and normal people die to help oligarchs jockey for relative position, but the degree to which murderous nationalistic/partisan rage can be stirred up in a plurality of the populace is intense, and instant.
We're currently on the tail end of en engineered media panic about an epidemic of shoplifting.
That's just how things are going to be now, people are so cynical about all media that they don't believe anything that comes from anywhere other than their own personal fandoms. But their own fandoms are just injecting the same propaganda directly into their veins.
The thing that's been most astounding to me is that the most militant about Ukraine in the US seem to completely overlap with the most Democratic/Republican hyperpartisan types, and each characterize extreme concern about the sovereignty of Ukraine as something that their respective parties own, and identify lack of appropriate concern about the sovereignty of Ukraine with the opposite party; the Republicans are traitorous Trumpian Soviet spies who deserve execution or exile, and the Democrats are peacenik anti-interventionist cowards who are holding back the military.
I suspect that's an incidental observation - because the main thing that hyperpartisans and Ukraine hysterics have in common is extreme consumption of television news.
Which is why they're so much less concerned about Yemen (which has been pointed out a ton), and why they have no historical background on the situation (because you had to read to know about the constant attempts of NATO expansion to Ukraine and the obvious problems with that, it wasn't something you could just pick up while changing channels.) The analogies between NATO expansion to Ukraine and the Cuban Missile Crisis are lost on people who don't know why NATO exists, and who don't actually know about the Cuban Missile Crisis other than it had something to do with Cuba, missiles, and the Soviet Union.
This world is still the same world where decisions are made by royalty, and normal people die to help oligarchs jockey for relative position, but the degree to which murderous nationalistic/partisan rage can be stirred up in a plurality of the populace is intense, and instant.
Man, even if you watch the news you’re quite likely to be affected by the media hype. It’s shameful the kind of control they have over us. What’s even more alarming is that absolute racists can hide themselves easily just by being on the right side of the media hive narrative. Look at how common Russians are being treated by sections of western society just for the crime of being Russian when they probably just escaped to the west from a life under Putin.
Capitalism is great, but unrestrained pure profit motive capitalism in some sectors - like journalism - does not look like it’s in public interest. Companies like Twitter just serve up content that can rile people up, with no concern for what it’s leading to. All they care about is engagement.
Capitalism is great, but unrestrained pure profit motive capitalism in some sectors - like journalism - does not look like it’s in public interest. Companies like Twitter just serve up content that can rile people up, with no concern for what it’s leading to. All they care about is engagement.
Yes this was Europe's response to Hitler's expansions. Downplaying the situation does NOT help when the aggressor is determined to do whatever it takes to advance their agenda.
The threat/warning Putin said after invading is very hard to dismiss. That was a turning point in my head. I tried to think over and over where was he drawing the line that he wouldn't cross and I got too uncomfortable with my imagination
[deleted]
I'm having flashbacks to the early 80's thinking about the American submarine sailors on high alert right now. I served on the USS G. W. Carver SSBN 656, which had 16 of Poseidon missiles. Each had 10 warheads for a total of 160 bombs that could target individual cities or obliterate a single Russian city like an atomic bomb shotgun blast. Like then, I pray now that nukes will never be launched. Also like then, I have nothing against the Russian people. Once the people in charge design a world like this, we are all bit players and victims of it.
GW Carver Poseidon C-3 missiles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmgY85tLdAY
GW Carver Poseidon C-3 missiles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmgY85tLdAY
Did it make you think about what it would look like if the war happened?
Would you fire the missiles if you knew it had started? Make the world unlivable for Russian kids? Effectively there's no US anymore, do you still follow the orders?
Would you fire the missiles if you knew it had started? Make the world unlivable for Russian kids? Effectively there's no US anymore, do you still follow the orders?
They run tests that are indistinguishable from real launch orders to verify the US would launch. The compliance rate is high enough that MAD is guaranteed.
I don't know where you got this info, but it's not difficult to tell a drill from an actual emergency. That said, it's not a problem because most launch techs would do their job.
I had a buddy who was a launch control tech. I asked him these same questions. He said the launch control officer had a .45 pistol to encourage him to initiate the launch sequence if he hesitated. I can't confirm this, but he was a morose person, not one to joke around.
So the opening scene of Wargames is not pure fiction?
I always thought if was fictional because a drill surely wouldn't require to actually shoot an uncooperative officer, and an unloaded/loaded with blanks gun would give the test away.
I always thought if was fictional because a drill surely wouldn't require to actually shoot an uncooperative officer, and an unloaded/loaded with blanks gun would give the test away.
I wonder whose gun is pointed at the officer
Reducing CO2 emissions are a key concern for our generation, and hobbling nuclear power because we're afraid of nuclear weapons proliferation is a great way to keep burning fossil fuels and keep CO2 emissions high.
I don't think the main opposers of nuclear power are afraid of it because of weapons. The nuclear critics I have spoken to, or read, have mostly talked about:
1.) The very slim chance of a very devastating incident
2.) The difficulties of storing burnt out fuel modules (this could include protecting them from dangerous too, as used modules could be used to create a dirty bomb)
3.) The economic problems with highly centralized power grids.
I am definitely not an expert though, and also I am not necessarily against nuclear, I just don't think that weapons of mass destruction are the main concern around nuclear power plants (although they are a part of it).
1.) The very slim chance of a very devastating incident
2.) The difficulties of storing burnt out fuel modules (this could include protecting them from dangerous too, as used modules could be used to create a dirty bomb)
3.) The economic problems with highly centralized power grids.
I am definitely not an expert though, and also I am not necessarily against nuclear, I just don't think that weapons of mass destruction are the main concern around nuclear power plants (although they are a part of it).
Additionally there is the argument of costs. Nuclear was feasible while governments heavily subsidized nucular (sorry couldn't resist). Either by not pricing in the cost for storage of burned fuel or for example insurance against costs of cleanup in case of an accident.
As with oil, coal or gas - externalities were not factored in and payed for by society. Just not with the price per kWh. While the gains were privatized.
So no. While somewhat cleaner nuclear power actually isn't a viable solution. Neither ecological nor economically from a society's standpoint.
As with oil, coal or gas - externalities were not factored in and payed for by society. Just not with the price per kWh. While the gains were privatized.
So no. While somewhat cleaner nuclear power actually isn't a viable solution. Neither ecological nor economically from a society's standpoint.
Stating that nuclear is not economical now based on bespoke US plants that are 50+ years old is similar to the arguments against solar in the 80s and 90s. It can be SO much cheaper if properly managed. Especially as the technology is explored properly.
Nuclear can be extremely cost effective. France is currently generating 70% of their power using nuclear and is significantly cheaper than US nuclear power seeing wholesale prices around 5 cents per kWh. US just has stupid expensive plants with 100% unique parts and old designs. This is why French consumers are paying 1/3 as much as Germans. In addition France is burning their waste in breeders.
You can blame most of the costs and problems of Nuclear in the US with an obsession over protecting private interests. Especially Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas companies. Meanwhile, nationalized energy companies in France are making us all look like idiots.
Nuclear can be extremely cost effective. France is currently generating 70% of their power using nuclear and is significantly cheaper than US nuclear power seeing wholesale prices around 5 cents per kWh. US just has stupid expensive plants with 100% unique parts and old designs. This is why French consumers are paying 1/3 as much as Germans. In addition France is burning their waste in breeders.
You can blame most of the costs and problems of Nuclear in the US with an obsession over protecting private interests. Especially Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas companies. Meanwhile, nationalized energy companies in France are making us all look like idiots.
The french costs keep going up.
The problem with nuclear is that smart people sit around thinking up all the 1% ways that the plant could meltdown and making iterative changes to designs to mitigate them. Managers generally approve them since its better not to be the person making the call on something that caused a meltdown as long as the increase in the cost is marginal. The sum total of a lot of marginal increases in the cost though is a negative learning curve.
Solar and wind don't have this because nobody worries about a solar plant blowing up and contaminating the surrounding countryside and cost a trillion dollars to clean up, so it keeps getting cheaper.
The problem with nuclear is that smart people sit around thinking up all the 1% ways that the plant could meltdown and making iterative changes to designs to mitigate them. Managers generally approve them since its better not to be the person making the call on something that caused a meltdown as long as the increase in the cost is marginal. The sum total of a lot of marginal increases in the cost though is a negative learning curve.
Solar and wind don't have this because nobody worries about a solar plant blowing up and contaminating the surrounding countryside and cost a trillion dollars to clean up, so it keeps getting cheaper.
Even with increases in costs for French nuclear, they are still nowhere near being un-profitable. They are definitely having trouble commissioning new plants now that political interests are lining up against new Nuclear capability. They have even had to start authorizing coal plants to increase energy production due to lack of supply to meet demand.
Replying to my sibling: solar got cheap because China decided to be rid of pollution and started mass producing.
There have been also some improvements on the research side but China was the largest effect.
There have been also some improvements on the research side but China was the largest effect.
To further support this, the top 4 polysilicon producers in the world are ALL in China. You can watch the price of polysilicon explode in 2008 when China got serious about pollution then drop like a rock immediately afterwards when they started making in en-masse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrystalline_silicon#/media...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrystalline_silicon#/media...
The #1 problem with economics of nuclear power is the steam turbine that is attached to the reactor. They quit building coal burning power plants at the same time they quit building nuclear plants because those are coupled to steam turbines and gas turbines with an order of magnitude less capital cost became available.
Economically viable nuclear power plants for the future will require liquid metal, liquid salt, or gas cooling. Likely these will also involve some innovation in fuel processing. Research on advanced nuclear energy was stopped almost completely in 1977 in response to racist nuclear proliferation fears.
Economically viable nuclear power plants for the future will require liquid metal, liquid salt, or gas cooling. Likely these will also involve some innovation in fuel processing. Research on advanced nuclear energy was stopped almost completely in 1977 in response to racist nuclear proliferation fears.
Costs for nuclear are largely two fold:
(1) Capital intensive construction (on the order of >$5 billion)
(2) Communities can revoke operating permits very near the end of completion.
Subsidies are provided to coal / natural gas in the same proportion of generation capacity within the US.
"Renewables" are subsidized at 10x other sources.
Subsidies are provided to coal / natural gas in the same proportion of generation capacity within the US.
"Renewables" are subsidized at 10x other sources.
RE: #1, My issue is with the people component. Sure you can have all these safe guards but eventually somebody makes the decision for profit over safety, and then it happens again, and again, and eventually there's no more safety error left and a disaster happens.
If you think this is unrealistic, it's currently happening in the US.
If you think this is unrealistic, it's currently happening in the US.
This is why I am so excited about Commonwealth Fusion Systems[1] and their SPARC reactor. By using newer high temperature superconducting magnets they can make a fusion reactor with the same Q gain as ITER that is 1/10th the size. Using a tokamak means well understood physics and engineering challenges. They recently proved their magnets work and got 1.8 billion dollars in funding. They believe they can demonstrate the SPARC reactor with net energy gain by 2025 and build the larger ARC reactor by 2030.
Maybe it will take a little longer but I’m optimistic it will not fail.
My big issues with nuclear fission are the powerful nuclear-capable government required to manage the reactors, the risk of catastrophic meltdown and the national security target reactors become. Fusion just needs duterium from seawater and can’t melt down.
[1] https://cfs.energy/technology
Maybe it will take a little longer but I’m optimistic it will not fail.
My big issues with nuclear fission are the powerful nuclear-capable government required to manage the reactors, the risk of catastrophic meltdown and the national security target reactors become. Fusion just needs duterium from seawater and can’t melt down.
[1] https://cfs.energy/technology
This opinion is actually what is causing the current Ukrainian crises. Politicians in American and Europe deprioritized carbon energy so as to boost green energy, which left us vulnerable to an attack from Russia. Very poor geopolitical thinking
It's poor thinking even if you leave geopolitics out of it. Solar power in Germany is a terrible idea from first principals. Wind is a bit better, but there's not enough energy there to power the country. A legit criticism of nuclear power is that it's expensive to build plants, but Germany is shutting down plants that have already been built. The net result, they're burning a lot of lignite and imported natural gas. The result, higher energy costs and much higher carbon emissions. For genuine environmentalists it's a disaster.
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany, Germany currently gets ~30% from wind and 10% from solar in 2020.
You're saying at 40% of current energy needs they've entirely maxed out Germany's solar and wind potential? That there's no more acreage left for new panels and turbines?
You're saying at 40% of current energy needs they've entirely maxed out Germany's solar and wind potential? That there's no more acreage left for new panels and turbines?
Maxed out? No probably not. But by the end of 2022 they will have spent 680 billion Euros on the transition. All the low hanging fruit is gone, so getting another 40 percent of their power needs from renewables will cost more than that. They're going to have to do things they haven't been willing to do so far, like building wind turbines near residential areas. And that still only gets them to 80% of consumption.
So sure, renewables are great, and it's good that Germany is doing so much to reduce carbon emissions. Because that's the point of renewables: reducing carbon emissions. And if that's the point, why on earth would you shut down nuclear power plants and switch to burning lignite???
So sure, renewables are great, and it's good that Germany is doing so much to reduce carbon emissions. Because that's the point of renewables: reducing carbon emissions. And if that's the point, why on earth would you shut down nuclear power plants and switch to burning lignite???
Yes you can build more wind and solar but people need power also during the dark and sometimes windless winter months. Storing enough power isn't currently feasible so it's basically either coal, gas or nuclear.
Russia's leverage over Europe comes from a European reliance on carbon energy.
Germany has made the mistake of backing out of nuclear energy.
I was unaware nuclear plants ran on carbon.
The claim upthread was "American and Europe deprioritized carbon energy". Germany has also grown green energy dramatically faster than they've reduced nuclear. It's a pity they didn't get a couple more years on it; I suspect that plays into Putin's timeline a bit.
The claim upthread was "American and Europe deprioritized carbon energy". Germany has also grown green energy dramatically faster than they've reduced nuclear. It's a pity they didn't get a couple more years on it; I suspect that plays into Putin's timeline a bit.
Why reduce emissions if we are going to have a nuclear war?
If all countries with nuclear weapons agree to convert all warheads into nuclear fuel, we could power humanity, reduce CO2, and eliminate the threat of nuclear armageddon.
If all countries with nuclear weapons agree to convert all warheads into nuclear fuel, we could power humanity, reduce CO2, and eliminate the threat of nuclear armageddon.
MAD only works if both sides are rational, and it is pretty clear that the major nuclear powers are lead by deeply irrational and unstable persons at times.
But I also see no plausible way at all to ever get rid of nuclear weapons. They are just too effective as a deterrent.
But I also see no plausible way at all to ever get rid of nuclear weapons. They are just too effective as a deterrent.
There's an extra layer of complexity here.
One requirement for MAD to work is two key properties of ICBMs:
* their launch is easily detectable * they take a long time to reach the target, long enough to respond with your own ICBMs
this incentivizes both sides to avoid a launch. It's like two people, each locked in a separate room, each with a button that will kill the other person. But when you push the button, the other person is notified, and they are not killed until after a 10-min countdown.
This gives them 10minutes to respond on spite. So if you push your button, consider yourself dead.
But what if the buttons were instantaneous, with no delay? Or what if the buttons did not trigger an alert in the other room?
Your only option for self-preservation is to push your button immediately.
Hyper glide entry nukes. If you can't detect them, and there's no warning, your only option is to strike first. That's the fear, anyway.
One requirement for MAD to work is two key properties of ICBMs:
* their launch is easily detectable * they take a long time to reach the target, long enough to respond with your own ICBMs
this incentivizes both sides to avoid a launch. It's like two people, each locked in a separate room, each with a button that will kill the other person. But when you push the button, the other person is notified, and they are not killed until after a 10-min countdown.
This gives them 10minutes to respond on spite. So if you push your button, consider yourself dead.
But what if the buttons were instantaneous, with no delay? Or what if the buttons did not trigger an alert in the other room?
Your only option for self-preservation is to push your button immediately.
Hyper glide entry nukes. If you can't detect them, and there's no warning, your only option is to strike first. That's the fear, anyway.
There are nuclear-armed submarines that just hide 24/7 so even if their home country is wiped out in a sneak attack, they can launch in revenge.
If you can't detect them, perhaps that increases the incentive to never even threaten the use of your own nuclear weapons? After all, a threat would encourage your (potential) enemies to strike first.
It's because USA knows the nuclear power of Russia that both countries doesn't go in conflict directly.
It seems strange, but because you can nuke me, and i can nuke you, we need to live peacefully for good or for worse.
I know that Ukraine is in a bad situation, but you think this would happen if Ukraine had nuclear power? Actually, the United States wanted Ukraine to give up on their nuclear weapons.
Actually because nations have the power to destroy humanity multiple times with their arsenal we live in a more peaceful world (although there are multiple wars, none of them compare to WW2 or WW1, there's a good video from Kurzgesagt on that topic.)
It seems strange, but because you can nuke me, and i can nuke you, we need to live peacefully for good or for worse.
I know that Ukraine is in a bad situation, but you think this would happen if Ukraine had nuclear power? Actually, the United States wanted Ukraine to give up on their nuclear weapons.
Actually because nations have the power to destroy humanity multiple times with their arsenal we live in a more peaceful world (although there are multiple wars, none of them compare to WW2 or WW1, there's a good video from Kurzgesagt on that topic.)
Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons because they gave them back to Russia in exchange for guarantees about their territorial sovereignty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
Didn’t other countries say they’d have ukraines back if something like this happen though?
The wording is more akin to "we won't attack", not "we will defend". Two of the signatories are Russia and Belarus.
Yes, the US and the UK promised to protect Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for disarmament.
(we didn't)
Edit: just look it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
(we didn't)
Edit: just look it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
No, they promised to respect it. That's a very significant difference.
Nothing in that document obliges the US or UK to intervene. It obliges them to go to the Security Council (done; Russia vetoed). They've gone beyond their obligations by providing arms and sanctions.
Nothing in that document obliges the US or UK to intervene. It obliges them to go to the Security Council (done; Russia vetoed). They've gone beyond their obligations by providing arms and sanctions.
AFAIK, Ukraine never had nuclear weapons as a practical matter. They were always under the control of the Russian military.
Edit: More specifically, under the control of the Kremlin. Assuming they have properly implemented nuclear codes that are non-trivial to circumvent. Given the US's track record on that, I'd be nervous.
Edit: More specifically, under the control of the Kremlin. Assuming they have properly implemented nuclear codes that are non-trivial to circumvent. Given the US's track record on that, I'd be nervous.
There wasn't really any clear legal status to them; the unit of the USSR military that was responsible for them wound up in the Ukranian armed forces after the split, as did quite a bit of other material. Thus, the agreement.
They could have, at the very least, used them as raw disasembled nuclear material for their own program, if they had wanted. As the recording industry discovered, once your stuff is in someone else's physical posession, it's hard to stop them from figuring out how it works.
They could have, at the very least, used them as raw disasembled nuclear material for their own program, if they had wanted. As the recording industry discovered, once your stuff is in someone else's physical posession, it's hard to stop them from figuring out how it works.
The issue is by that time they'd have been overrun by both the Russians and the US.
I believe they had physical control but no launch codes.
The counterpoint of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is that nuclear-armed countries are more free to start minor wars with non nuclear-armed countries, confident that there won't be direct intervention by other nuclear-armed countries. These wars become proxy wars between the nuclear powers.
It's referred to as the Stability-instability paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability%E2%80%93instability_...
It's referred to as the Stability-instability paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability%E2%80%93instability_...
You might be asking the wrong question. You could instead be asking: “Do you think this would happen if Russia wouldn’t have Nuclear Weapons?”
Deterrence works both ways. If it really deters a military action against you, then perhaps you can be the aggressor and be safe from retaliation as long as you threaten your nukes.
Deterrence works both ways. If it really deters a military action against you, then perhaps you can be the aggressor and be safe from retaliation as long as you threaten your nukes.
MAD is the same concept as "an armed society is a polite society"
I don't like either idea. Being civil to one another simply because the other party might respond with incredibly disproportionate violence is not a civilised way to live.
I don't like either idea. Being civil to one another simply because the other party might respond with incredibly disproportionate violence is not a civilised way to live.
They're quite different actually. A gun does not guarantee MAD. Hence why the invention of firearms did not end wars.
If I had a gun and you had a gun, I can kill you with said gun before you fire your weapon. That's not the case with nukes. With nukes, I see that you've fired yours, so I will fire mine. And due to the amount of nukes owned by the world, we know that said firing of all nukes will lead to the destruction of most if not all life on earth.
> Being civil to one another simply because the other party might respond with incredibly disproportionate violence is not a civilised way to live
Nature doesn't care about civility. Don't let the means get in the way of results. The world has been much more peaceful since the invention of nuclear weapons. In any case, we can't put the genie back in the bottle. We have no choice but to live with it.
If I had a gun and you had a gun, I can kill you with said gun before you fire your weapon. That's not the case with nukes. With nukes, I see that you've fired yours, so I will fire mine. And due to the amount of nukes owned by the world, we know that said firing of all nukes will lead to the destruction of most if not all life on earth.
> Being civil to one another simply because the other party might respond with incredibly disproportionate violence is not a civilised way to live
Nature doesn't care about civility. Don't let the means get in the way of results. The world has been much more peaceful since the invention of nuclear weapons. In any case, we can't put the genie back in the bottle. We have no choice but to live with it.
What is the alternative? If I have a gun and you aren't armed, your only hope for a peaceful life is that I choose to leave you alone. If I choose to enslave you, abuse you, or kill you, what could you reasonably do about it at that point?
Nuclear weapons are the same. It would be irresponsible to disarm fully while you have enemies that seek to take advantage of you.
Making appeals to what is "civilized" or not is just fluff, it means nothing. At one point in "civilized" society people would duel to the death over insults.
Nuclear weapons are the same. It would be irresponsible to disarm fully while you have enemies that seek to take advantage of you.
Making appeals to what is "civilized" or not is just fluff, it means nothing. At one point in "civilized" society people would duel to the death over insults.
Disarming and then getting rolled when your counterparty takes advantage isn't a civilized way to live. See: Ukraine.
What we call "civilization" is always founded on a threat of using force. Even in a primitive tribal society with nothing but spears, you keep in line with the tribe for fear of retaliation.
All civilizations have grown by incredible disproportionate violence and conquest.
China and Persia old empires, Greek, Egypt, Roman Empire, The Muslim expansion. In America the Incas and Mayas. The Spanish Empire, then the French and British. Then the American Empire.
The only exception to that have been the Phoenicians, then Carthage, that started as pacific merchants, but they were forced into war by the Romans.
China and Persia old empires, Greek, Egypt, Roman Empire, The Muslim expansion. In America the Incas and Mayas. The Spanish Empire, then the French and British. Then the American Empire.
The only exception to that have been the Phoenicians, then Carthage, that started as pacific merchants, but they were forced into war by the Romans.
[deleted]
But we cannot be blind to the reality that there are people who only behave because of coercion.
[deleted]
This is true until suddenly it isn’t…
That's know as MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
That's know as MAD and only works when your enemy's button pusher is a sane individual. There is less and less confidence that Putin sane.
RealLifeLore has a great video on why Russia is initiating these attacks. Worth a watch: https://youtu.be/If61baWF4GE
It works best if both are insane but fear death.
A reasonable actor wouldn't counter attack a first strike because annihilation of mankind is not an option.
A reasonable actor wouldn't counter attack a first strike because annihilation of mankind is not an option.
Not entirely factious: why not? Life would go on. Not human life sure, but it’s not like we’re the ultimate shepherds of the planet and it would be a valueless rock without us.
If the options are: yield the planet over to some nuclear hardened species to chill out and recover for a few hundred thousand years while other novel (radiation hardened) lifeforms develop, or yield the planet over to the people who have demonstrated willingness to absolutely obliterate their enemies and will likely continue initiating mass extinction events far into the future… I certainly don’t think one option is 100% off the table.
Interestingly, those radiation hardened life forms might actually be better suited to be earth-seed than us — space is an unfriendly environment for human kind, making us ill suited to be the planet’s intergalactic ambassadors.
(Now I want to read some sci fi book where it turns out all the intergalactic species come from planets where the original intelligent inhabitants blew themselves to smithereens and created a nuclear winter, causing the next intelligence to develop a deep rooted desire for world peace and scientific exploration…)
If the options are: yield the planet over to some nuclear hardened species to chill out and recover for a few hundred thousand years while other novel (radiation hardened) lifeforms develop, or yield the planet over to the people who have demonstrated willingness to absolutely obliterate their enemies and will likely continue initiating mass extinction events far into the future… I certainly don’t think one option is 100% off the table.
Interestingly, those radiation hardened life forms might actually be better suited to be earth-seed than us — space is an unfriendly environment for human kind, making us ill suited to be the planet’s intergalactic ambassadors.
(Now I want to read some sci fi book where it turns out all the intergalactic species come from planets where the original intelligent inhabitants blew themselves to smithereens and created a nuclear winter, causing the next intelligence to develop a deep rooted desire for world peace and scientific exploration…)
We're all going to die someday so I would certainly be fine with shooting back.
If you are christian you believe mankind lives on in a happy afterlife event, nobody really dies. So no biggie if you shoot back.
If you are atheist, it's not clear why you should care about the continued existence of a species evil enough to murder your friends and family. Seeking justice for them makes more sense. At any rate it's not reasonable for an atheist to believe our species would live forever. We were going to eventually die anyway.
If you are christian you believe mankind lives on in a happy afterlife event, nobody really dies. So no biggie if you shoot back.
If you are atheist, it's not clear why you should care about the continued existence of a species evil enough to murder your friends and family. Seeking justice for them makes more sense. At any rate it's not reasonable for an atheist to believe our species would live forever. We were going to eventually die anyway.
The afterlife is meaningless if the decision makers are damned with the murder of billions.
And justice is meaningless if no one is left.
And justice is meaningless if no one is left.
Religious people don't tend to be against war, historically. One general famously said "Kill them all and let God sort it out." The idea that God has knowable opinions against MAD policy seems a bit of a stretch.
People find meaning when they are alive. The person firing the missle- being alive- has as much as anyone else.
People find meaning when they are alive. The person firing the missle- being alive- has as much as anyone else.
Inspired by recent events, I re-watched 'Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb'. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Vladimir Putin watched the movie with Oliver Stone. Putin said not much has changed, except the situation is more dangerous today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxls8uC4DA
Discussing the Ukraine war the other day, I brought up the movie and learned that people have no idea what MAD is. It is possible that the only thing more insane about the MAD doctrine is that people living under it have no idea they do. What a world we live in!
Vladimir Putin watched the movie with Oliver Stone. Putin said not much has changed, except the situation is more dangerous today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxls8uC4DA
Discussing the Ukraine war the other day, I brought up the movie and learned that people have no idea what MAD is. It is possible that the only thing more insane about the MAD doctrine is that people living under it have no idea they do. What a world we live in!
Quite a lot of people now have no understanding of the cold war either, considering it old history at best. It is more relevant right now than what's happened between 1991 up until last week. Even if you were paying attention in 2009 and 2014 and saw those events as dress rehearsals for last week, it's still shocking how a founding member of the U.N., a permanent member of the Security Council, has allowed romatic notions and fear of encroaching democracy end his kleptocracy into the biggest risk to returning us right back to the cold war. And yes, it's probably true that Cold War 2.0 will be more dangerous and expensive than before. This will have a disproportionate cost, but everyone will pay in one form or another.
GenX 80's kid with Deja Vu ....
Why not ban nuclear weapons all together?
I know it may look naive at first, but intelligence services are super advanced these days. If some country would try to develop one, we should know immediately.
I know it may look naive at first, but intelligence services are super advanced these days. If some country would try to develop one, we should know immediately.
>Why not ban nuclear weapons all together?
Here's an existing worldwide ban that a bunch of countries already signed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_N...
But nuclear powers like United States, Russia, China, North Korea didn't sign it.
Now what? What's the game theory logic that would incentivize a country to disarm its nuclear weapons? Even if a country signs it, how do you monitor every underground missile silo or submarine in the ocean for compliance?
Here's an existing worldwide ban that a bunch of countries already signed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_N...
But nuclear powers like United States, Russia, China, North Korea didn't sign it.
Now what? What's the game theory logic that would incentivize a country to disarm its nuclear weapons? Even if a country signs it, how do you monitor every underground missile silo or submarine in the ocean for compliance?
From an fantasy perspective for modeling incentives?
An equally powerful/cost effective weapon that left no radiation damage and no burning city afterwards even if there is still only a crater left.
That way you can have mutual destruction without destroying the rest of the world as collateral. It will be a technology replacement.
You will not loose any strategic capability, meaning you can make progress without the "timed-collective-action-threshold-conditional-commitment" thing that is never going to happen with the incentive structure as its now.
There is no incentive for weapons that can destroy the entire world if the entire world is not aligned, only for weapons that can destroy nations.
That said, this line of thinking makes me sick, while at the same time it seems impossible to me without something similar, you have to make them obsolete.
An equally powerful/cost effective weapon that left no radiation damage and no burning city afterwards even if there is still only a crater left.
That way you can have mutual destruction without destroying the rest of the world as collateral. It will be a technology replacement.
You will not loose any strategic capability, meaning you can make progress without the "timed-collective-action-threshold-conditional-commitment" thing that is never going to happen with the incentive structure as its now.
There is no incentive for weapons that can destroy the entire world if the entire world is not aligned, only for weapons that can destroy nations.
That said, this line of thinking makes me sick, while at the same time it seems impossible to me without something similar, you have to make them obsolete.
Yes the problem is detection and enforcement and not clear how to achieve this. It is imperative that we someday overcome this though as the risk of accidental escalation at any point in time is significant and is bound to happen some day. Everyone must come to the recognition that possession of nuclear weapons is an aggression against everyone given their widespread impact and it is in everyone's self interest to not allow for their existence. I'm also not sure how easy it would be to keep large quantities of weapons completely hidden.
There is also the issue of incorrect or false accusations of possession of the weapons to allow for aggression against an entity, it hasn't even been very long since the last time this happened either.
And when you say it hasn't been very long since, you mean that it's literally happening right now. One of Russia's insane excuses is that Ukraine is trying to build nuclear weapons.
Still sounds a lot less serious than when we invaded Iraq using the lie that they had biological weapons. We caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. We bombed the country to hell indiscriminately.
> Now what?
We need to talk about it more. With 9/11 (and some American attempts to establish nuclear 1st strike doctrine), it sort of fell off the radar. Noam Chomsky always mentions nuclear weapons as the biggest threat to humankind, along with global warming.
We need to emphasize the uselessness/cost of nuclear weapons for rational/moral actors and the risk of irrational actors taking control.
The two largest nuclear arsenals (Russian and American) have been steadily decreasing over past 30 years, but it could happen faster.
We need to talk about it more. With 9/11 (and some American attempts to establish nuclear 1st strike doctrine), it sort of fell off the radar. Noam Chomsky always mentions nuclear weapons as the biggest threat to humankind, along with global warming.
We need to emphasize the uselessness/cost of nuclear weapons for rational/moral actors and the risk of irrational actors taking control.
The two largest nuclear arsenals (Russian and American) have been steadily decreasing over past 30 years, but it could happen faster.
If I am not mistaken, I think the capability to effectively destroy an entire country with non-nuclear weapons already exists. So the idea is, MAD as a strategy would still be present. You can maintain a non-nuclear arsenal to enforce MAD. But we would get everybody to agree that the nuclear version of MAD would likely end humanity and therefore a global ban is appropriate.
I doubt this will ever happen. But maybe in a post-Putin, more democratic (or subdued) Russia we could get there. Not sure how enforcement would work, but a global inspection organization combined with national intelligence capabilities might be sufficient to detect any significant build up. One can dream I guess.
I doubt this will ever happen. But maybe in a post-Putin, more democratic (or subdued) Russia we could get there. Not sure how enforcement would work, but a global inspection organization combined with national intelligence capabilities might be sufficient to detect any significant build up. One can dream I guess.
You agree to mutual, simultaneous reductions that are audited by an independent body.
A smaller number of nukes might increase the likelihood of them being used, if their use wouldn’t guarantee total annihilation of either side. They might become a tactical option, because even if you get nuked back, you might still live to fight on.
Still safer for the world in general though.
Still safer for the world in general though.
Ideally we find the number that still effectively guarantees MAD but is currently smaller than what we have now, so at least it won't cause extinction but will have the same deterrence capability. Do we really need 1500 nukes on either side for full deterrence? Wouldn't 500 do the job?
How do we take them away from a country that has them already? How do you establish this level of power over all countries without establishing a de facto global tyranny? How do you back up that tyranny with adequate force when states that surely will not accept it already have so much force themselves?
I'm inclined to put this one on the "shrug and accept it" pile and focus on other things. It's not like we have a shortage of other problems to contend with.
I'm inclined to put this one on the "shrug and accept it" pile and focus on other things. It's not like we have a shortage of other problems to contend with.
You write and enter treaties to gradually dismantle nuclear weapons, and you impose sanctions on nations the refuse to do so. This would be a huge undertaking, but I think we live in an era that is basically the pile up of huge undertakings systematically put off.
I agree that we live in an era with a pileup of huge undertakings put off too long, but disagree that this is really a new thing. Meanwhile, treaties to dismantle nuclear weapons have been around for decades and have reduced arsenals and proliferation a bit, but not as much as anyone might hope. Sanctions don't appear to be stopping people killing their neighbours right now, so I must admit I am doubtful that they can stop people preparing to potentially kill in future.
> If some country would try to develop one, we should know immediately.
Like present day North Korea and Iran? Intelligence services let us know that development is underway. But as GI Joe would remind us, knowing is only half the battle. Who enforces the ban, and who pries nukes out of US, Russia and China's cold dead hands without setting any of them off?
Like present day North Korea and Iran? Intelligence services let us know that development is underway. But as GI Joe would remind us, knowing is only half the battle. Who enforces the ban, and who pries nukes out of US, Russia and China's cold dead hands without setting any of them off?
Despite the existential threat they pose, nukes have had a remarkably stabilizing effect on the world.
Everything is very stable until it is not. Then I suppose stability still occurs just in the ashes of our civilisation.
>Why not ban nuclear weapons all together?
Because you will become the slave of some country that does not ban those?
I mean, it does not require a tremendous amount of imagination after you can see it for yourself in Ukraine.
>I know it may look naive at first. >If some country would try to develop one, we should know immediately.
I don't know what "we" means, the US of America? Certainly small countries have not such bast resources and intelligence as the US to control the rest of the world. But even the US is not omniscient, and if it were and could know everything it is not omnipotent to tell the other countries what to do.
Because you will become the slave of some country that does not ban those?
I mean, it does not require a tremendous amount of imagination after you can see it for yourself in Ukraine.
>I know it may look naive at first. >If some country would try to develop one, we should know immediately.
I don't know what "we" means, the US of America? Certainly small countries have not such bast resources and intelligence as the US to control the rest of the world. But even the US is not omniscient, and if it were and could know everything it is not omnipotent to tell the other countries what to do.
Sounds great, but how do we enforce it? Invading the countries that don't want to give up nukes will make them "give them up" in a bad way.
Game theory says everyone would then be itching to build them quickly, secretly while nobody else had them launch and become the hegemony.
Look at the banned weapons the Russians are using against Ukraine. Banning is nice in theory.
> Why not ban nuclear weapons all together?
No country is going to give up their nukes. Ukraine did exactly that yet here we are...
No country is going to give up their nukes. Ukraine did exactly that yet here we are...
How would such a thing even be enforced?
Probably because of the risk. MAD is stable.
Respect for the logic of MAD is premised on rational leadership. Eventually, one day, that won't be true.
> intelligence services are super advanced these days
If that were true, how do you reconcile every Western intelligence agency being 100% wrong about the likelihood of Russia invading Ukraine?
If that were true, how do you reconcile every Western intelligence agency being 100% wrong about the likelihood of Russia invading Ukraine?
Really? They were basically pre-cog on that front. Everything they said was going to happen happened when they said it was going to happen. At least from the layman's perspective of what intelligence they released to the public. Which there was a lot of. Who the heck is saying this? RT? Fox News?
Here’s the litany of strategists predicting it:
https://mobile.twitter.com/rnaudbertrand/status/149849110790...
https://mobile.twitter.com/rnaudbertrand/status/149849110790...
So what territory is Russia going to invade next according to the same experts?
You seem to be unclear on the difference between intelligence analysis and fortune telling.
> You seem to be unclear on the difference between intelligence analysis and fortune telling.
No. You seem to forget that many strategists also thought Russia wouldn't launch a full scale war against Ukraine.
No. You seem to forget that many strategists also thought Russia wouldn't launch a full scale war against Ukraine.
It was possible to predict the Ukraine war; such an operation requires planning, troop moves, etc. It's very clear US intelligence had a good handle on this.
Predicting the next war now prior to any such planning/moves is a silly expectation of people, even if they're experts.
Predicting the next war now prior to any such planning/moves is a silly expectation of people, even if they're experts.
> Predicting the next war now prior to any such planning/moves is a silly expectation of people, even if they're experts.
Russia threatened Finland with invasion if they join NATO. Are the Russians actually going to invade Finland when the later joins NATO?
Russia threatened Finland with invasion if they join NATO. Are the Russians actually going to invade Finland when the later joins NATO?
No one knows. That's crystal ball stuff.
If Russia starts moving troops towards Finland, and intelligence agencies start getting indications from electronic and human intelligence, and the rhetoric starts ramping up, you start being able to make more educated predictions.
If Russia starts moving troops towards Finland, and intelligence agencies start getting indications from electronic and human intelligence, and the rhetoric starts ramping up, you start being able to make more educated predictions.
The US/UK had been sounding the alarm for several weeks before it happened.
Uh, what?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/25/us-intel-predicted-russias-i...
> For months, the White House made highly unusual releases of intelligence findings about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plans to attack Ukraine. Hoping to preempt an invasion, it released details of Russian troop buildups and warned repeatedly that a major assault was imminent.
> Critics of U.S. intelligence — including Russian officials who dismissed invasion allegations as fantasy — had been pointing to past failures like the false identification of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But Russia’s invasion so far has played out largely as the Biden administration said it would back in December, with nearly 200,000 troops striking from several sides of Ukraine.
Dec 4, 2021: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/04/us/politics/russia-ukrain...
Dec 23, 2021: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/us/politics/russia-ukrain...
Jan 19, 2022: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/us/politics/biden-putin-r...
Feb 11, 2022: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-invasion-any-tim...
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/25/us-intel-predicted-russias-i...
> For months, the White House made highly unusual releases of intelligence findings about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plans to attack Ukraine. Hoping to preempt an invasion, it released details of Russian troop buildups and warned repeatedly that a major assault was imminent.
> Critics of U.S. intelligence — including Russian officials who dismissed invasion allegations as fantasy — had been pointing to past failures like the false identification of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But Russia’s invasion so far has played out largely as the Biden administration said it would back in December, with nearly 200,000 troops striking from several sides of Ukraine.
Dec 4, 2021: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/04/us/politics/russia-ukrain...
Dec 23, 2021: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/us/politics/russia-ukrain...
Jan 19, 2022: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/us/politics/biden-putin-r...
Feb 11, 2022: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-invasion-any-tim...
Intelligence has known Russia would invade Ukraine since the Crimean invasion in 2014. Trump was impeached over threatening to withhold military aid to Ukraine. This isn't a surprise to anyone.
I don't know if we were reading the same media, but I was surprised by how _accurate_ the invasion predictions were.
Down to the day of the invasion, it was as if the western intelligence services were two steps ahead throughout the build up and actual invasion, dispelling the Russian misinformation campaign in real time.
Down to the day of the invasion, it was as if the western intelligence services were two steps ahead throughout the build up and actual invasion, dispelling the Russian misinformation campaign in real time.
Reducing war - full stop - would make even better sense.
Considering the fact that most wars - stated or not - are about natural resources (and the control there of), if these war wefforts (i.e., lives, money, time, etc.) were channeled into productive things, there would be plenty to go around.
The USA alone has an annual DoD budget close to three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Even if that was cut in half, that frees up resources for good (e.g., nuclear fusion).
Considering the fact that most wars - stated or not - are about natural resources (and the control there of), if these war wefforts (i.e., lives, money, time, etc.) were channeled into productive things, there would be plenty to go around.
The USA alone has an annual DoD budget close to three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Even if that was cut in half, that frees up resources for good (e.g., nuclear fusion).
Well said. When will USA exit NATO, allow Europe to pay for it's own defense, and spend those funds on beneficial projects at home?
>and spend those funds on beneficial projects at home?
What funds? The US is what it is because it forces the world to buy dollars.
If a European country wants to buy gas from Saudi Arabia, the deal must be done is dollars.
Why? Because the US forces that to happen, by force.
The moment the US stops using military force outside their borders, the world does not need dollars anymore, and the US becomes way poorer, because they can not print dollars anymore.
What funds? The US is what it is because it forces the world to buy dollars.
If a European country wants to buy gas from Saudi Arabia, the deal must be done is dollars.
Why? Because the US forces that to happen, by force.
The moment the US stops using military force outside their borders, the world does not need dollars anymore, and the US becomes way poorer, because they can not print dollars anymore.
Printing dollars doesn't create wealth. Print money (fiat) devalues that currency.
Ron Paul (per End The Fed) would say that it's the unthrottled printing of dollars than enables the USA's warmongering.
Ron Paul (per End The Fed) would say that it's the unthrottled printing of dollars than enables the USA's warmongering.
I'm a little confused about how nuclear winter works esp. in relation to climate change, maybe someone here can enlighten me.
The article states: "large columns of smoke and soot rise up [...] to the stratosphere. There it [...] blocks the sun [...] The nuclear winter [...] is expected to lead to temperature declines of 20 or even 30 degrees Celsius (60–86° F)"
So "smoke and soot" placed in the stratosphere lowers the earth's temperature, yet C02 in the atmosphere raises earth's temperature? Why?
Follow up naive question: can we strategically place smoke in the stratosphere to counter global warming? What are the consequences of that?
The article states: "large columns of smoke and soot rise up [...] to the stratosphere. There it [...] blocks the sun [...] The nuclear winter [...] is expected to lead to temperature declines of 20 or even 30 degrees Celsius (60–86° F)"
So "smoke and soot" placed in the stratosphere lowers the earth's temperature, yet C02 in the atmosphere raises earth's temperature? Why?
Follow up naive question: can we strategically place smoke in the stratosphere to counter global warming? What are the consequences of that?
CO2 is transparent to visible light but not to infrared, so it allows sunlight to heat the surface of the earth but impedes its cooling. Smoke and soot is not transparent, so it blocks sunlight from heating the surface in the first place.
It's worth mentioning that there has been some criticism[0] of the initial science behind the Nuclear Winter proposition. That said, smoke and soot can have a cooling effect on the Earth's temperature and CO2 (and other "greenhouse gasses") a warming effect because they absorb different wavelengths of light.
The sun is a very hot (~5500K) blackbody that emits radiation in a broad spectrum, but that spectrum peaks in the visible. Some of that light is incident on Earth and warms it up. Earth also emits its own blackbody radiation, but it's much cooler (~300K), so it emits much less power over all and its spectrum peaks somewhere in the long infrared. The system is in equilibrium when the sun has heated the Earth enough that the total energy radiated away from Earth is equal to the fraction of the sun's radiation that is absorbed by Earth.
Earth's atmosphere can change this equilibrium temperature by changing the fraction of incident energy that is absorbed by Earth, or changing its emissivity. Moreover, these changes can be wavelength dependent. Greenhouse gasses are gasses that are transparent in the visible spectrum but are reflective in the infrared, which allow in most of the sun's energy, but "trap" infrared energy that is being emitted by earth. Smoke and soot, by contrast, are very reflective in visible light (we can see them!) and so "block" much of the sun's energy from heating the Earth.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_d...
The sun is a very hot (~5500K) blackbody that emits radiation in a broad spectrum, but that spectrum peaks in the visible. Some of that light is incident on Earth and warms it up. Earth also emits its own blackbody radiation, but it's much cooler (~300K), so it emits much less power over all and its spectrum peaks somewhere in the long infrared. The system is in equilibrium when the sun has heated the Earth enough that the total energy radiated away from Earth is equal to the fraction of the sun's radiation that is absorbed by Earth.
Earth's atmosphere can change this equilibrium temperature by changing the fraction of incident energy that is absorbed by Earth, or changing its emissivity. Moreover, these changes can be wavelength dependent. Greenhouse gasses are gasses that are transparent in the visible spectrum but are reflective in the infrared, which allow in most of the sun's energy, but "trap" infrared energy that is being emitted by earth. Smoke and soot, by contrast, are very reflective in visible light (we can see them!) and so "block" much of the sun's energy from heating the Earth.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_d...
> Follow up naive question: can we strategically place smoke in the stratosphere to counter global warming? What are the consequences of that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_geoengineering
Neal Stephenson's latest book "Termination Shock" portrays such a program, and emphasizes some of the complexities; global mitigations tend to have very local effects at times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_geoengineering
Neal Stephenson's latest book "Termination Shock" portrays such a program, and emphasizes some of the complexities; global mitigations tend to have very local effects at times.
There's been discussion of trying to alter the atmosphere to lower the earth's temperature.
In theory, I suppose, it's possible. The reality is, humans too often over-estimate their understanding and then muck X or Y up even more. Given that we're talking about a scale encompassing the whole planet and the future there of...well, you see it's risky.
In theory, I suppose, it's possible. The reality is, humans too often over-estimate their understanding and then muck X or Y up even more. Given that we're talking about a scale encompassing the whole planet and the future there of...well, you see it's risky.
The soot particles make the color of that part of the planet into a lighter color. In planet science, this is known as 'albedo.' A lighter albedo increases the amount of solar rays which are reflected into space.
There are proposals to use this to reduce warming, of varying seriousness. It's seen as a rather extreme measure though: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190220-how-artificially...
That all said, the degree of cooling predicted by nuclear theorists was overstated—not that overstating the destructiveness of nuclear weapons is so bad: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/nuclear-winter-th...
There are proposals to use this to reduce warming, of varying seriousness. It's seen as a rather extreme measure though: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190220-how-artificially...
That all said, the degree of cooling predicted by nuclear theorists was overstated—not that overstating the destructiveness of nuclear weapons is so bad: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/nuclear-winter-th...
> That all said, the degree of cooling predicted by nuclear theorists was overstated—not that overstating the destructiveness of nuclear weapons is so bad
Yeah, and even if it wasn't, the effects wouldn't be from nuclear weapons themselves, it would be from every single city burning down. Nuclear winter is pretty far down on the list of problems that a full blown nuclear war would cause.
Yeah, and even if it wasn't, the effects wouldn't be from nuclear weapons themselves, it would be from every single city burning down. Nuclear winter is pretty far down on the list of problems that a full blown nuclear war would cause.
[deleted]
> I'm a little confused about how nuclear winter works esp. in relation to climate change, maybe someone here can enlighten me.
It doesn't. The only study that seriously explored the possibility of nuclear winter and coined that term also showed that any cooling effects would be temporary and very likely insignificant to begin with.
E.g. complete reversion to normal within 3-5 years, and continuation of global warming.
It doesn't. The only study that seriously explored the possibility of nuclear winter and coined that term also showed that any cooling effects would be temporary and very likely insignificant to begin with.
E.g. complete reversion to normal within 3-5 years, and continuation of global warming.
Particulates block incoming light. Crops fail. Malnutrition and disease.
Year without a summer: https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/mount...
Year without a summer: https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/mount...
My understanding is that CO2 absorbs long-wavelength infrared energy and doesn't stop the rest of the radiation/light from hitting Earth's surface, while smoke and soot, being opaque, partially prevents the light from reaching the surface and reflects the energy back into space.
Particles are reflective to incoming visible light, while CO2 is transparent to incoming visible light but opaque to infrared radiation (heat).
I wonder if we will colonize Moon, Mars, establish some space colonies. Say 200 years from now. Will there be new nukes aimed at every Mars settlement just in case? At first I thought that space expansion will be our insurance from Earth nuclear war. But probably people never change.
I guess we need new ultimate defense against nuclear bombs. May be some intercepting drones which are cheap and impossible to avoid. That might render those nukes useless.
I guess we need new ultimate defense against nuclear bombs. May be some intercepting drones which are cheap and impossible to avoid. That might render those nukes useless.
This is a major plot point in the show/book The Expanse. Very worth checking out.
The major point made in the story is that putting people in space just changes the types of conflicts we have, it won't eliminate them.
The major point made in the story is that putting people in space just changes the types of conflicts we have, it won't eliminate them.
> It is therefore important to see that there are additional ways that can reduce the chance of the world suffering the horrors of nuclear war.
The article doesn’t note perhaps the most common and likely way the world reduces that chance, appeasement. If not for the remarkable fight of the Ukrainians and logistical failures of Russia, the West would already have washed their hands of it after passing weak sanctions and token condemnation.
The article doesn’t note perhaps the most common and likely way the world reduces that chance, appeasement. If not for the remarkable fight of the Ukrainians and logistical failures of Russia, the West would already have washed their hands of it after passing weak sanctions and token condemnation.
Nuclear weapons are historically proven deterrents that have kept the peace. Conventional war is much worse. It’s both longer and far more brutal.
[deleted]
The sad likely outcome is Russia will kill enough people in Ukraine until they submit. Russia has a long history of indiscriminate massive violence, even against its own.
What do we do about it? In my view Russia is outside the U.N. charter and Geneva Convention, the multilateral system for peaceful resolution of disputes. And they should not profit at all until they leave every inch of Ukraine and pay restitution. Until they do that, they are out of the the global free trade system. Sanctions should be a complete and total. And it will take time to get there because the spigot can't be turned off over night. By extension I think it is necessary to completely cut off from global free trade any country that continues to to business with Russia.
Every single dollar I spend on a product in country A or B who then does business with Russia, is a resource in the pocket of Putin to drop bombs on Ukrainians today and Europe, or even America, tomorrow. His word is worth less than nothing. He has renegged on all of the most important international agreements of this time.
We have to stop looking for cheap oil and gas as the excuse for weakening the best thing the world has invented so far, however imperfect it is. And that's our obligations under the agreements signed after the last world wars. No amount of profit and comfort is worth that. This is lost on too many people who think it is. They think it's acceptable to come out on top and it will be just the peons who will suffer, and that's OK with them. Well FUCK those people.
What do we do about it? In my view Russia is outside the U.N. charter and Geneva Convention, the multilateral system for peaceful resolution of disputes. And they should not profit at all until they leave every inch of Ukraine and pay restitution. Until they do that, they are out of the the global free trade system. Sanctions should be a complete and total. And it will take time to get there because the spigot can't be turned off over night. By extension I think it is necessary to completely cut off from global free trade any country that continues to to business with Russia.
Every single dollar I spend on a product in country A or B who then does business with Russia, is a resource in the pocket of Putin to drop bombs on Ukrainians today and Europe, or even America, tomorrow. His word is worth less than nothing. He has renegged on all of the most important international agreements of this time.
We have to stop looking for cheap oil and gas as the excuse for weakening the best thing the world has invented so far, however imperfect it is. And that's our obligations under the agreements signed after the last world wars. No amount of profit and comfort is worth that. This is lost on too many people who think it is. They think it's acceptable to come out on top and it will be just the peons who will suffer, and that's OK with them. Well FUCK those people.
I thought it was a key concern of the last generation not our. Until recently our key concerns were climate change and global poverty but now all of a sudden we could have nuclear war. I guess that escalated quickly without any reasonable explanation.
As the Russian military build-up and invasion of Ukraine has unfolded, I have spent more time thinking about how much humanity tolerates the concentration of significant power (or its proxy, extreme wealth) in small groups of individuals. For me, tackling this issue should be the key concern of our generation.
The smaller the set and the greater the power the set holds, the higher the risk of bad outcomes. The set is composed from human beings, therefore mental health, extremist or nihilistic tendencies will negatively affect the outcomes. Nuclear war is an existentially threatening outcome, but only one of many whose likelihood is determined by a small group of (fragile) individuals.
Why do people here think that historically the personality cult of leadership became so prevalent? And why are the existential risks of power concentration still so accepted given the evidence we see right in front of us?
The smaller the set and the greater the power the set holds, the higher the risk of bad outcomes. The set is composed from human beings, therefore mental health, extremist or nihilistic tendencies will negatively affect the outcomes. Nuclear war is an existentially threatening outcome, but only one of many whose likelihood is determined by a small group of (fragile) individuals.
Why do people here think that historically the personality cult of leadership became so prevalent? And why are the existential risks of power concentration still so accepted given the evidence we see right in front of us?
I’m kinda getting tired of journalists and politicians who make obvious statements like “Reducing the risk of nuclear war should be a key concern.” Duh! We already know that.
You'd think. But there are a lot of people talking about "doing more" to help Ukraine.
The idea of a no-fly zone is being bandied about. They wave away the nuclear concern while advocating shooting down Russian planes (killing the pilots) and destroying anti-aircraft weapons (killing the soldiers operating them) in Ukraine and just over the border in Belarus and Russia. People are asking if we should "do nothing" while a 40-mile column of troops and equipment is heading for Kyiv.
And by "people" I don't mean randos on Twitter or even media personalities. I mean sitting US Senators[1] and former NATO commanders[2].
The idea of a no-fly zone is being bandied about. They wave away the nuclear concern while advocating shooting down Russian planes (killing the pilots) and destroying anti-aircraft weapons (killing the soldiers operating them) in Ukraine and just over the border in Belarus and Russia. People are asking if we should "do nothing" while a 40-mile column of troops and equipment is heading for Kyiv.
And by "people" I don't mean randos on Twitter or even media personalities. I mean sitting US Senators[1] and former NATO commanders[2].
[1] https://www.nationalreview.com/news/republican-senator-urges-u-s-to-impose-no-fly-zone-over-ukraine/
[2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/27/breedlove-nato-commander-russia-ukraine-war/It's already a key concern. Still there other key concerns such as not having democracies taken over by dictatorships.
One thing that worries me particularly about the current situation is how calculating Putin is, and how little regard he has for the US. He expected us to just knuckle under and take it when he invaded Ukraine, like we have done in the past.
So, what does he think about our resolve to use nuclear weapons? MAD only works as a deterrent if everyone is convinced the other side will follow through. Nuclear weapons are such a terrible weapon, I personally believe some politicians would not have the courage (or insanity) to push the button when they must, if they think the game is already lost either way.
Maybe Putin thinks he can use nukes as long as they don't hit someone in NATO. I don't know what goes through his mind, but I do know that nuclear weapons are just about the one single thing humanity has ever created that is unambiguously evil. If they are ever used again (and I expect eventually they will be), I hope whomever lives through the experience has the courage to eliminate any remaining ones through whatever means necessary, and then institutes monitoring sufficient to prevent them ever being created again.
So, what does he think about our resolve to use nuclear weapons? MAD only works as a deterrent if everyone is convinced the other side will follow through. Nuclear weapons are such a terrible weapon, I personally believe some politicians would not have the courage (or insanity) to push the button when they must, if they think the game is already lost either way.
Maybe Putin thinks he can use nukes as long as they don't hit someone in NATO. I don't know what goes through his mind, but I do know that nuclear weapons are just about the one single thing humanity has ever created that is unambiguously evil. If they are ever used again (and I expect eventually they will be), I hope whomever lives through the experience has the courage to eliminate any remaining ones through whatever means necessary, and then institutes monitoring sufficient to prevent them ever being created again.
>One thing that worries me particularly about the current situation is how calculating Putin is, and how little regard he has for the US.
I will say it is the other way around. The US considered Russia "done" and expanded NATO without concern about Russia.
It was the US the one that broke the deal of preserving the status quo. That was extremely evident when the US started maneuvering to take Sevastopol from Russia(via Maidan coup d'etat supported by the US), something extremely dangerous as Russia could not let that happen as we have seen.
I will say it is the other way around. The US considered Russia "done" and expanded NATO without concern about Russia.
It was the US the one that broke the deal of preserving the status quo. That was extremely evident when the US started maneuvering to take Sevastopol from Russia(via Maidan coup d'etat supported by the US), something extremely dangerous as Russia could not let that happen as we have seen.
Russia could join NATO, too. Putin is the guy who decided it was him against the world.
this thread is full of hypotheticals and blaming irrational actors for fear of nukes.
the only country to drop nukes on enemies is the US.
our fear of enemies using nukes has set us back half a century in energy.
why do we focus on hypotheticals when there’s no evidence for 80 years?
the only country to drop nukes on enemies is the US.
our fear of enemies using nukes has set us back half a century in energy.
why do we focus on hypotheticals when there’s no evidence for 80 years?
> this thread is full of hypotheticals and blaming irrational actors for fear of nukes.
I think it's a by-definition thing at this point, that if a nuclear war occurs it will be due to irrational actors. The only rational thing to do with nukes is not use them.
> the only country to drop nukes on enemies is the US
True, the first time they were used in warfare was by the US in 1945. There's no reason to think that's the end of the list.
> our fear of enemies using nukes has set us back half a century in energy.
I don't understand this. What nuclear power plants have not been built, due to fears of thermonuclear weapons? I'm sure there are a few instances (i.e. Iran), but the vast majority of sluggish nuclear power plant building is due to local opposition for reasons both misguided and not.
> why do we focus on hypotheticals when there’s no evidence for 80 years?
Well, because there's been nothing to sample in the extremely short time-span of 80 years! 80 years isn't even a century. It's minuscule in terms of human history. We've gone longer than that between major pandemics, volcanic eruptions that cause a never-ending winter. Solar flares that destroy all electrical grids, etc.
Existential events don't happen every day ya know :)
I think it's a by-definition thing at this point, that if a nuclear war occurs it will be due to irrational actors. The only rational thing to do with nukes is not use them.
> the only country to drop nukes on enemies is the US
True, the first time they were used in warfare was by the US in 1945. There's no reason to think that's the end of the list.
> our fear of enemies using nukes has set us back half a century in energy.
I don't understand this. What nuclear power plants have not been built, due to fears of thermonuclear weapons? I'm sure there are a few instances (i.e. Iran), but the vast majority of sluggish nuclear power plant building is due to local opposition for reasons both misguided and not.
> why do we focus on hypotheticals when there’s no evidence for 80 years?
Well, because there's been nothing to sample in the extremely short time-span of 80 years! 80 years isn't even a century. It's minuscule in terms of human history. We've gone longer than that between major pandemics, volcanic eruptions that cause a never-ending winter. Solar flares that destroy all electrical grids, etc.
Existential events don't happen every day ya know :)
> I think it's a by-definition thing at this point, that if a nuclear war occurs it will be due to irrational actors. The only rational thing to do with nukes is not use them.
> There's no reason to think that's the end of the list.
i agree with both. my point is rational/irrational actor has nothing to do with it. i think retaliation would be irrational but many would make a case otherwise. a case could be made for initiating conflict as well if weighing against hypothetical lives saved. that's frequently how ww2 usage is justified.
> What nuclear power plants have not been built, due to fears of thermonuclear weapons?
fair point. while i agree there is a distinction between weapons and energy, i think the branding applies to both. also, if we didn't fear nukes in the wrong hands, every country would have the tech for energy. wikipedia says 32 countries have nuclear power plants. i understand our fear, but i'd say it's also why nuclear power isn't ubiquitous.
> Well, because there's been nothing to sample in the extremely short time-span of 80 years!
absolutely. very short time. there were ample opportunities to use nukes in warfare even in that short time. my comments were focusing on the fact we use hypotheticals of irrational actors when the only evidence we have is counter. there's no telling what happens going forward.
> There's no reason to think that's the end of the list.
i agree with both. my point is rational/irrational actor has nothing to do with it. i think retaliation would be irrational but many would make a case otherwise. a case could be made for initiating conflict as well if weighing against hypothetical lives saved. that's frequently how ww2 usage is justified.
> What nuclear power plants have not been built, due to fears of thermonuclear weapons?
fair point. while i agree there is a distinction between weapons and energy, i think the branding applies to both. also, if we didn't fear nukes in the wrong hands, every country would have the tech for energy. wikipedia says 32 countries have nuclear power plants. i understand our fear, but i'd say it's also why nuclear power isn't ubiquitous.
> Well, because there's been nothing to sample in the extremely short time-span of 80 years!
absolutely. very short time. there were ample opportunities to use nukes in warfare even in that short time. my comments were focusing on the fact we use hypotheticals of irrational actors when the only evidence we have is counter. there's no telling what happens going forward.
While the spectre of nuclear conflict should not hold us back from use of nuclear power generation, there is plenty of real evidence here that we have been extremely lucky so far.
There have been many times where we have come very close to global nuclear war and it had been adverted by chance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls
Also take a look at past 'broken arrow' events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid...
One day we are going to roll a critical failure.
There have been many times where we have come very close to global nuclear war and it had been adverted by chance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls
Also take a look at past 'broken arrow' events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid...
One day we are going to roll a critical failure.
these are interesting, thanks for sharing
i'm in favor of getting rid of weapons. if nuclear power is ubiquitous, i don't know how that would be possible though.
i'm in favor of getting rid of weapons. if nuclear power is ubiquitous, i don't know how that would be possible though.
The worlds you live in is not world you think it is.
The generation of Putin, Lukashenko and all Sovietic widow/Tyrant wannabe should die soon. We have to move away from that. Otherwise we are just the angry chimps that are able to lie and use smartphones.
My plan for nuclear war survival is to not.
This seems to be an attitude more prevalent in the US, to simply assume that it the outcome of this is too horrible and that there is no point in trying. It is actually quite possible to survive and your chances can be greatly improved especially with a little planning and if you read this:
https://www.oism.org/nwss/
https://www.oism.org/nwss/
Just because you can improve your chances of surviving a nuclear exchange doesn’t mean it’s desirable. I don’t want to live through the subsequent famines and slow death of everyone I know and love. https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2022/03/what-the...
When I was younger, watching post apocalyptic shows and movies made me think/fantasize what I would do to survive in such situations (and usually rate myself pretty well in being able to survive).
Now, I'm much more "F** that S**" and would take a quick painless death over long drawn out misery.
Now, I'm much more "F** that S**" and would take a quick painless death over long drawn out misery.
Those movies were lying to make a point; they were trying to terrify people and succeeded, not trying to make them survive if it actually happened. It's rare that you would see a thoughtful film about surviving and rebuilding the world after it, because it is beyond the scope of film and doesn't have the hook that fear brings.
Don't take things too seriously. Remember all the movies about the internet in the 1990s.
Don't take things too seriously. Remember all the movies about the internet in the 1990s.
Why ? Even if USA/Europe/Russia and China nuke themselves to oblivion that's all northern hemisphere. I'm sure the atmosphere would be fucked up for a while but after that ?
Would Australia/NZ/South Africa/Argentina etc. be livable ? After how long ?
Would Australia/NZ/South Africa/Argentina etc. be livable ? After how long ?
I have a feeling the earth will melt down due to our incompetence by itself before we ever have the opportunity to do it with nukes.
since 1945
Zuckerberg election meddling has consequences. Would any of this be even happening if a more Rusia friendly administration was still in charge.
Depending on where we are in the news cycle, you might have anything from a mass shooting, to treatment of economic migrants, to Covid, to climate change, to cops shooting black people, to war, to illegal immigration, to terrorism, to white supremacy, to drugs, etc labeled as THE CRITICAL ISSUE WE MUST TACKLE FOR HUMANITY NOW.
We went from mass societal panic about Covid to mass societal panic about Ukraine basically without skipping a beat and few people notice how their energy was redirected so seamlessly. How many people gave a shit about past Russian incursions into Ukraine or Georgia for land? The rest of the world basically never gave a shit about that only because the media never told them that they had to care about that. It's absurd how much influence the media has over people who are only overly concerned about whether they maintain acceptable public opinions or not.