5 ms·

Worries about nuclear fallout are vastly overstated. If you detonate the weapons at the right altitude, they retain most of their destructive effect without cre

Worries about nuclear fallout are vastly overstated. If you detonate the weapons at the right altitude, they retain most of their destructive effect without creating long term catastrophic fallout.

fokinsean 9y ago
> If you detonate the weapons at the right altitude Yeah and if you detonate the at ground level there is going to be a lot of fallout. Worries are very valid.
- ghostcluster 9y ago
  Crying wolf by making up deliberately exaggerated scenarios in order to push a social agenda is not valid, and damages the reputation of scientists.
  - fokinsean 9y ago
    lol nuclear fallout isn't a hoax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders
    - ghostcluster 9y ago
      'Nuclear Winter' is. That is the topic of this post. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/nuclear-winter-theorists-pull-back.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/nuclear-winter-the...
knowaveragejoe 9y ago
Surely that will be considered when employing these weapons in a war.
- bcoates 9y ago
  The "right altitude" maximizes damage and mostly reduces fallout as a side-effect, so yeah
- kazagistar 9y ago
  Surely the "when" was meant to be an "if"? Is the default assumption that this level of violence will happen again? The presence of that mindset is what allows escalation, rather then it being considered at most a crazy edge case scenario. My coworkers were discussing what would happen if California voted to declare independence from the United States. The hypothetical scenario instantly moved to "occupation by US Military forces", which hadn't even come up in my mind. Its not like the EU states moved to occupy Britain or anything. It seems like the obvious solution is to try to sit down, think about it, debate it, and work out the problems of the involved parties. Why turn directly to violence?
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    >The hypothetical scenario instantly moved to "occupation by US Military forces", which hadn't even come up in my mind. Its not like the EU states moved to occupy Britain or anything. We had a war about this. US states are not allowed to secede. The Union is perpetual.
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      And in contrast, the EU explicitly allows exit. So it’s not a very good comparison.
    - isostatic 9y ago
      So was the Roman Empire.

Worries about nuclear fallout are vastly overstated. If you detonate the weapons at the right altitude, they retain most of their destructive effect without creating long term catastrophic fallout.

fokinsean 9y ago

> If you detonate the weapons at the right altitude Yeah and if you detonate the at ground level there is going to be a lot of fallout. Worries are very valid.

ghostcluster 9y ago
Crying wolf by making up deliberately exaggerated scenarios in order to push a social agenda is not valid, and damages the reputation of scientists.
- fokinsean 9y ago
  lol nuclear fallout isn't a hoax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders
  - ghostcluster 9y ago
    'Nuclear Winter' is. That is the topic of this post. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/nuclear-winter-theorists-pull-back.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/nuclear-winter-the...

knowaveragejoe 9y ago

Surely that will be considered when employing these weapons in a war.

bcoates 9y ago
The "right altitude" maximizes damage and mostly reduces fallout as a side-effect, so yeah
kazagistar 9y ago
Surely the "when" was meant to be an "if"? Is the default assumption that this level of violence will happen again? The presence of that mindset is what allows escalation, rather then it being considered at most a crazy edge case scenario. My coworkers were discussing what would happen if California voted to declare independence from the United States. The hypothetical scenario instantly moved to "occupation by US Military forces", which hadn't even come up in my mind. Its not like the EU states moved to occupy Britain or anything. It seems like the obvious solution is to try to sit down, think about it, debate it, and work out the problems of the involved parties. Why turn directly to violence?
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  >The hypothetical scenario instantly moved to "occupation by US Military forces", which hadn't even come up in my mind. Its not like the EU states moved to occupy Britain or anything. We had a war about this. US states are not allowed to secede. The Union is perpetual.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    And in contrast, the EU explicitly allows exit. So it’s not a very good comparison.
  - isostatic 9y ago
    So was the Roman Empire.