[HN Gopher] Reducing the risk of nuclear war should be a key con...
___________________________________________________________________
Reducing the risk of nuclear war should be a key concern of our
generation
Author : bpierre
Score : 131 points
Date : 2022-03-03 19:28 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ourworldindata.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ourworldindata.org)
| shane_b wrote:
| 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?
| panax wrote:
| 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.
| shane_b wrote:
| 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.
| function_seven wrote:
| > _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 :)
| shane_b wrote:
| > 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.
| cmurf wrote:
| 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.
| pelasaco wrote:
| 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.
| c141charlie wrote:
| 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.
| cwp wrote:
| 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]. [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/
| logicalmonster wrote:
| Perhaps the key concern of our generation should be learning to
| avoid emotional overreaction to the media's business model of
| fear-porn and outrage-porn for clicks and shares.
|
| 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.
| pessimizer wrote:
| 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.
| thr0wawayf00 wrote:
| 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.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| 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.
| ifyoubuildit wrote:
| > 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.
| [deleted]
| penjelly wrote:
| 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.
| fabian2k wrote:
| 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]
| yongjik wrote:
| > 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.
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| 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.
| ChefboyOG wrote:
| 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.
| madacol wrote:
| 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
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| There's no contradiction between thinking fear porn is bad and
| thinking nuclear war is a real and horrible risk.
| michaelt wrote:
| 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.
| sonnyblarney wrote:
| saboot wrote:
| whatever1 wrote:
| 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.
| res0nat0r wrote:
| COVID was the cause of the deadliest event in US history.
| [deleted]
| yed wrote:
| 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.
| 8note wrote:
| 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
| daenz wrote:
| The Boy Who Cried Wolf comes to mind. When everything is an
| emergency, nothing is.
| yed wrote:
| 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.
| atoav wrote:
| 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Someone who always cries "sheep" and keeps asserting
| genuine issues are "just the flu" or "Russia won't invade"
| is similarly problematic.
| daenz wrote:
| 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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.
| daenz wrote:
| 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.
| Mo3 wrote:
| 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.
| avip wrote:
| Reflecting on what will be the greater challenge for my kids:
| avoiding emotional overreaction to the media's business model
| ...or climate change.
|
| Pretty sure it's the later
| Ourgon wrote:
| 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", _Bjorn 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.
| rfwhyte wrote:
| 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.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| 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.
| ben_w wrote:
| 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
| guelo wrote:
| Why would you go with "gut feeling" instead of IPCC AR6?
| ben_w wrote:
| The elevator pitch summary of IPCC AR6 is "It is only
| possible to avoid warming of 1.5 degC 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".
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| 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.
| daenz wrote:
| 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.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| 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.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Or serious problems do exist and for the most part we are
| shielded from them.
| sonnyblarney wrote:
| perfunctory wrote:
| > 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?
| ithkuil wrote:
| 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)
| bogota wrote:
| 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.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| 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.
| dijonman2 wrote:
| > 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.
| [deleted]
| thr0wawayf00 wrote:
| 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.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| 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.
| newsclues wrote:
| 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.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| See
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program
| smate wrote:
| 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).
| sdoering wrote:
| 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.
| foxyv wrote:
| 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.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| 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.
| foxyv wrote:
| 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#/me
| dia...
| lamontcg wrote:
| 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.
| foxyv wrote:
| 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.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| 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.
| omgJustTest wrote:
| hanniabu wrote:
| 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.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| 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
| fdgsdfogijq wrote:
| 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
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Russia's leverage over Europe comes from a European
| _reliance_ on carbon energy.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Germany has made the mistake of backing out of nuclear
| energy.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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.
| cwp wrote:
| 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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?
| darzu wrote:
| 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 (60-86deg 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?
| dplavery92 wrote:
| 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
| ...
| landemva wrote:
| Particulates block incoming light. Crops fail. Malnutrition and
| disease.
|
| Year without a summer: https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-
| zone/how-climate-works/mount...
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| 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.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| 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.
| yed wrote:
| 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.
| ip26 wrote:
| Particles are reflective to incoming visible light, while CO2
| is transparent to incoming visible light but opaque to infrared
| radiation (heat).
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > 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.
| shadowofneptune wrote:
| 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...
| murderfs wrote:
| > 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.
| antisthenes wrote:
| > 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.
| noncoml wrote:
| 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.
| klyrs wrote:
| > 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?
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Game theory says everyone would then be itching to build them
| quickly, secretly while nobody else had them launch and become
| the hegemony.
| barelysapient wrote:
| How would such a thing even be enforced?
| enchiridion wrote:
| Probably because of the risk. MAD is stable.
| csee wrote:
| Respect for the logic of MAD is premised on rational
| leadership. Eventually, one day, that won't be true.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| 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.
| infamouscow wrote:
| > 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?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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...
| dktoao wrote:
| 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?
| Aeolos wrote:
| 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.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| Here's the litany of strategists predicting it:
|
| https://mobile.twitter.com/rnaudbertrand/status/149849110790.
| ..
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| So what territory is Russia going to invade next according
| to the same experts?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You seem to be unclear on the difference between
| intelligence analysis and fortune telling.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > 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?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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.
| dahdum wrote:
| The US/UK had been sounding the alarm for several weeks
| before it happened.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| 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.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > Why not ban nuclear weapons all together?
|
| No country is going to give up their nukes. Ukraine did exactly
| that yet here we are...
| yetanotherloser wrote:
| 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.
| dv_dt wrote:
| 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.
| yetanotherloser wrote:
| 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.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| Despite the existential threat they pose, nukes have had a
| remarkably stabilizing effect on the world.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Everything is very stable until it is not. Then I suppose
| stability still occurs just in the ashes of our civilisation.
| tiborsaas wrote:
| Look at the banned weapons the Russians are using against
| Ukraine. Banning is nice in theory.
| jasode wrote:
| _> 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?
| panax wrote:
| 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.
| js8 wrote:
| > 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.
| csee wrote:
| You agree to mutual, simultaneous reductions that are audited
| by an independent body.
| jl6 wrote:
| 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.
| csee wrote:
| 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?
| cmax wrote:
| 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.
| qqqwerty wrote:
| 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.
| cracrecry wrote:
| >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.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| 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.
| cracrecry wrote:
| >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.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Russia could join NATO, too. Putin is the guy who decided it
| was him against the world.
| chaostheory wrote:
| Nuclear weapons are historically proven deterrents that have kept
| the peace. Conventional war is much worse. It's both longer and
| far more brutal.
| crmd wrote:
| Unlike during the Cold War, the probability of a surprise
| strategic nuclear attack from any side is virtually zero. The
| most probable path to a civilization-ending strategic nuclear
| exchange starts with a conventional war that escalates with the
| use of a small, tactical battlefield nuclear weapon, that
| escalates further into a strategic counterforce (air force bases)
| and then countervalue (New York City, Los Angeles, etc) exchange.
|
| I don't know how to "reduce the risk of nuclear war" other than
| giving each nuclear power what it wants - the freedom to exercise
| regional hegemony. This means the US letting Russia dominate
| Eurasia and reassemble the Soviet Union, and letting China
| dominate Asia.
|
| The betrayal and suffering that would cause for hundreds of
| millions of humans from Taiwan and Japan to Lithuania and Romania
| is frankly unconscionable.
| cmurf wrote:
| This is completely inconsistent with the U.N. Charter and
| Geneva Conventions, is a return to the Cold War at best and at
| worst demands we forget everything we learned from WW1 and 2,
| sweeping all of that history aside in an apparent attempt to
| repeat it.
|
| Allowing nuclear countries to threaten the use of nukes in
| order to successfully commit atrocities with conventional
| weapons is not distinguishable from "might makes right". The
| U.N. charter and Geneva Conventions were created to avoid those
| very things. Setting them aside, in particular without a
| replacement, does everything possible to put us on the path to
| another world war. Everything starts to unravel.
| crmd wrote:
| I agree and would argue further that it would embolden
| belligerent aspirational regional hegemons such as Iran, and
| scare vulnerable US allies such as Japan and Saudi Arabia
| into to accelerating their nuclear weapons aspirations.
|
| TL;DR appeasing current nuclear powers will greatly
| accelerate proliferation and paradoxically increase the risk
| of nuclear war. Quite the conundrum...
| euroderf wrote:
| In this vein, the film to watch is Failsafe. An eye for an eye,
| and full stop.
| mwattsun wrote:
| 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
| lordnacho wrote:
| 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?
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| 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.
| mwattsun wrote:
| 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.
| mwattsun wrote:
| 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.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| 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.
| thecrumb wrote:
| 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.
| fswd wrote:
| ...
| MintsJohn wrote:
| Stop spreading nonsense, NATO (planning on) arming Ukraine with
| nukes is Russian propaganda, not happening, never happening,
| very much not the reasob for the Russian invasion
| modzu wrote:
| since 1945
| fabian2k wrote:
| 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.
| 2bitencryption wrote:
| 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.
| michaelt wrote:
| 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.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Zuckerberg election meddling has consequences. Would any of this
| be even happening if a more Rusia friendly administration was
| still in charge.
| hackersword wrote:
| GenX 80's kid with Deja Vu ....
| dade_ wrote:
| 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!
| cmurf wrote:
| 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.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| dahdum wrote:
| > 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.
| empiricus wrote:
| The worlds you live in is not world you think it is.
| [deleted]
| nicolasmelo12 wrote:
| 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.)
| andy_ppp wrote:
| This is true until suddenly it isn't...
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| That's know as MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
| frobozz wrote:
| 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.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Disarming and then getting rolled when your counterparty
| takes advantage isn't a civilized way to live. See: Ukraine.
| cracrecry wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| mgfist wrote:
| 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.
| flyinglizard wrote:
| 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.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| But we cannot be blind to the reality that there are people
| who only behave because of coercion.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| 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.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| 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.
| rhino369 wrote:
| I believe they had physical control but no launch codes.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The issue is by that time they'd have been overrun by both
| the Russians and the US.
| jerlam wrote:
| 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_...
| junon wrote:
| 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.
| croes wrote:
| 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.
| staticman2 wrote:
| 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.
| archagon wrote:
| The afterlife is meaningless if the decision makers are
| damned with the murder of billions.
|
| And justice is meaningless if no one is left.
| jakear wrote:
| 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...)
| gibolt wrote:
| RealLifeLore has a great video on why Russia is initiating
| these attacks. Worth a watch: https://youtu.be/If61baWF4GE
| runarberg wrote:
| 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.
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| 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...
| endisneigh wrote:
| Didn't other countries say they'd have ukraines back if
| something like this happen though?
| jerlam wrote:
| The wording is more akin to "we won't attack", not "we will
| defend". Two of the signatories are Russia and Belarus.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| 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/Budapes
| t_Memorandum_on_Securit...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| 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).
| landemva wrote:
| 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?
| cracrecry wrote:
| >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.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| 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.
| em3rgent0rdr wrote:
| It's already a key concern. Still there other key concerns such
| as not having democracies taken over by dictatorships.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| 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.
| jl6 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
| ch33zer wrote:
| 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.
| sklargh wrote:
| My plan for nuclear war survival is to not.
| panax wrote:
| 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/
| hackersword wrote:
| 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.
| Noos wrote:
| 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.
| moonchrome wrote:
| 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 ?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-03 23:02 UTC)