3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoFair point about arms reduction. I'd been thinking "nuclear war in general" rather than "a nuclear war right now", which is probably the more useful discussion.