4 ms·

> even the worst nuclear war imaginable won't be as bad as WW2 was It wouldn't take that many major cities to get past the death toll of WW2. The "worst nuclea

> even the worst nuclear war imaginable won't be as bad as WW2 was It wouldn't take that many major cities to get past the death toll of WW2. The "worst nuclear war" would easily have more civilian casualties than WW2. How on Earth can you even say this?

mrec 10y ago
Yup. Karachi, Shanghai and Beijing alone would put you above the total casualties of WW2. I've no idea what GP is smoking.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  In order to destroy NYC one would require on the order of 40 warheads. Nuclear weapons are far less devastating than we think. Using weapons on civilian populations leaves intact enemy military forces which would be free to counter-attack. For this reason most war plans target enemy military installations. You want to keep a certain number of weapons in reserve, it makes approximately zero sense to completely obliterate a city. The only reason major population centers were targeted in WW2 was because those centers were also major military targets, destroying them would have been crucial to the planned amphibious assault. Had we not had nuclear weaponry on hand, they would have been conventionally bombed like all the others. Warfare has changed, materiel is now located outside of population centers, on military bases. Putting countries on war footing would take 18 months and it's unlikely any major conflict would last that long. Strategic materials are the ultimate limiter to high-tech warfare like we see today. We just don't have enough to keep pumping out weapons. In the end, the very stakes of warfare keep local conflicts from escalating. It's in everybody's best interest to keep the cash flowing. Trade was far more regional 80 years ago.
  - petre 10y ago
    > The only reason major population centers were targeted in WW2 was because those centers were also major military targets Like Dresden? Beer factories and civil industry, all reduced to rubble by carpet bombing. Do read Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Not your average anti war book.
  - mrec 10y ago
    I think you're being extraordinarily optimistic. Here's [1] a declassified JCS report from 1961 estimating over 200 million deaths from a US attack alone, not including the counterattack. This was with lower target populations and a China which had yet to urbanize. And I don't think it includes the longer-term death toll, e.g. from starvation as transportation webs collapse. Here's [2] another report from 1956: > the authors developed a plan for the “systematic destruction” of Soviet bloc urban-industrial targets that specifically and explicitly targeted “population” in all cities, including Beijing, Moscow, Leningrad, East Berlin, and Warsaw That one aimed 179 nukes at Moscow alone. You don't think 40 aimed at NYC was plausible? Yes, many nukes would hit military targets outside urban areas, but many wouldn't. If you're right and the war was a relatively short affair that mostly targetted (and presumably decimated) opposing militaries, the long-term postwar strategic advantage would go to whichever side could rebuild fastest. That means aiming for economic advantage, which means that long-term nuclear strategy includes attacking economic targets, which in large part means population centres. Would WW3 result in entire continents glassed over and the extinction of all life on Earth? No. But I'm pretty sure it would be a lot worse than WW2, and this assumption that "it wouldn't really be all that bad" strikes me as absolutely terrifying. Yes, "It's in everybody's best interest to keep the cash flowing." There was exactly the same consensus before WW1. Actors don't always act in their own best interest, even if they're rational. [1] https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/u-s-war-plans-would-kill-an-estimated-108-million-soviets-104-million-chinese-and-2-3-million-poles-more-evidence-on-siop-62-and-the-origins-of-overkill/ https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/u-s-war-plans-wou... [2] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/ https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-...
    - vinceguidry 10y ago
      The nuclear arsenal increased from 2,422 in 1955 to 18,638 in 1960. It stands now at 4,500. There were simply a lot more weapons available, and population centers were where warfighting capability was concentrated. Both of those things now are moot. The argument is over whether nuclear war could end Western civilization. While for a short time this might have been true circa 1960, it no longer remains so now. Sure, it'll royally suck. It's on the same scale as WW2. But not the end of the world. I'll point you again to Rotty, whose job it is to know these things. https://www.quora.com/How-many-fatalities-would-there-be-in-the-case-of-a-USA-Russia-full-scale-nuclear-war/answer/Thierry-Etienne-Joseph-Rotty https://www.quora.com/How-many-fatalities-would-there-be-in-...

mrec 10y ago

Yup. Karachi, Shanghai and Beijing alone would put you above the total casualties of WW2. I've no idea what GP is smoking.

vinceguidry 10y ago
In order to destroy NYC one would require on the order of 40 warheads. Nuclear weapons are far less devastating than we think. Using weapons on civilian populations leaves intact enemy military forces which would be free to counter-attack. For this reason most war plans target enemy military installations. You want to keep a certain number of weapons in reserve, it makes approximately zero sense to completely obliterate a city. The only reason major population centers were targeted in WW2 was because those centers were also major military targets, destroying them would have been crucial to the planned amphibious assault. Had we not had nuclear weaponry on hand, they would have been conventionally bombed like all the others. Warfare has changed, materiel is now located outside of population centers, on military bases. Putting countries on war footing would take 18 months and it's unlikely any major conflict would last that long. Strategic materials are the ultimate limiter to high-tech warfare like we see today. We just don't have enough to keep pumping out weapons. In the end, the very stakes of warfare keep local conflicts from escalating. It's in everybody's best interest to keep the cash flowing. Trade was far more regional 80 years ago.
- petre 10y ago
  > The only reason major population centers were targeted in WW2 was because those centers were also major military targets Like Dresden? Beer factories and civil industry, all reduced to rubble by carpet bombing. Do read Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Not your average anti war book.
- mrec 10y ago
  I think you're being extraordinarily optimistic. Here's [1] a declassified JCS report from 1961 estimating over 200 million deaths from a US attack alone, not including the counterattack. This was with lower target populations and a China which had yet to urbanize. And I don't think it includes the longer-term death toll, e.g. from starvation as transportation webs collapse. Here's [2] another report from 1956: > the authors developed a plan for the “systematic destruction” of Soviet bloc urban-industrial targets that specifically and explicitly targeted “population” in all cities, including Beijing, Moscow, Leningrad, East Berlin, and Warsaw That one aimed 179 nukes at Moscow alone. You don't think 40 aimed at NYC was plausible? Yes, many nukes would hit military targets outside urban areas, but many wouldn't. If you're right and the war was a relatively short affair that mostly targetted (and presumably decimated) opposing militaries, the long-term postwar strategic advantage would go to whichever side could rebuild fastest. That means aiming for economic advantage, which means that long-term nuclear strategy includes attacking economic targets, which in large part means population centres. Would WW3 result in entire continents glassed over and the extinction of all life on Earth? No. But I'm pretty sure it would be a lot worse than WW2, and this assumption that "it wouldn't really be all that bad" strikes me as absolutely terrifying. Yes, "It's in everybody's best interest to keep the cash flowing." There was exactly the same consensus before WW1. Actors don't always act in their own best interest, even if they're rational. [1] https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/u-s-war-plans-would-kill-an-estimated-108-million-soviets-104-million-chinese-and-2-3-million-poles-more-evidence-on-siop-62-and-the-origins-of-overkill/ https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/u-s-war-plans-wou... [2] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/ https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-...
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    The nuclear arsenal increased from 2,422 in 1955 to 18,638 in 1960. It stands now at 4,500. There were simply a lot more weapons available, and population centers were where warfighting capability was concentrated. Both of those things now are moot. The argument is over whether nuclear war could end Western civilization. While for a short time this might have been true circa 1960, it no longer remains so now. Sure, it'll royally suck. It's on the same scale as WW2. But not the end of the world. I'll point you again to Rotty, whose job it is to know these things. https://www.quora.com/How-many-fatalities-would-there-be-in-the-case-of-a-USA-Russia-full-scale-nuclear-war/answer/Thierry-Etienne-Joseph-Rotty https://www.quora.com/How-many-fatalities-would-there-be-in-...