3 ms·

What is the temperature of nuclear war? It seems to me to be nonsensical. The boiling point of water at atmospheric pressure? Why not the boiling point of ir

by bb88 7y ago

What is the temperature of nuclear war? It seems to me to be nonsensical. The boiling point of water at atmospheric pressure? Why not the boiling point of iron? Or the surface temperature of the sun? Or the temperature of a nuclear weapon detonated on the surface temperature of the earth at t=10us? What is that anyway, does the average american know? Thermonuclear war is and always will be a possible event in time, not some random value of temperature on the celsius scale. It gave Americans (and the rest of the world) an answer to the question, "How close are we to nuclear war?" The nuclear scientists could say "The midnight clock is set to 7 minutes." And people could understand what it meant if it moved forwards or backwards. It was never about measurement. It was always a symbol.

ggambetta 7y ago
> What is the temperature of nuclear war? You miss my point. A thermometer would be a better analogy than a clock, because a thermometer measures something that can go up and down, whereas a clock is expected to move inexorably towards midnight. And the temperature of a nuclear war is as arbitrary as using midnight as the time of a nuclear war. > [...] an answer to the question, "How close are we to nuclear war?" The nuclear scientists could say "The midnight clock is set to 7 minutes." ...which is entirely meaningless, so it doesn't answer the question at all. > people could understand what it meant if it moved forwards or backwards. Clocks don't normally move backwards. Hence, thermometer. > It was never about measurement. It was always a symbol. I get that. I'm just saying is a really poorly thought out symbol.
- bb88 7y ago
  > You miss my point. Why do you assume that? Is it possible I completely understood your point and just challenged your thinking on it? I always find it funny on here that some people prefer to be absolutely technically correct on something, rather than just letting a symbol be a symbol, imperfect as all symbols are. As someone who grew up in the 1980's, anytime the clock moved, it made the nightly news. PS: we do move the clock back and forth for Daylight Savings Time, or to adjust the it when it's off -- A clock is afterall a human construct.

by bb88 7y ago

ggambetta 7y ago

> What is the temperature of nuclear war? You miss my point. A thermometer would be a better analogy than a clock, because a thermometer measures something that can go up and down, whereas a clock is expected to move inexorably towards midnight. And the temperature of a nuclear war is as arbitrary as using midnight as the time of a nuclear war. > [...] an answer to the question, "How close are we to nuclear war?" The nuclear scientists could say "The midnight clock is set to 7 minutes." ...which is entirely meaningless, so it doesn't answer the question at all. > people could understand what it meant if it moved forwards or backwards. Clocks don't normally move backwards. Hence, thermometer. > It was never about measurement. It was always a symbol. I get that. I'm just saying is a really poorly thought out symbol.

bb88 7y ago
> You miss my point. Why do you assume that? Is it possible I completely understood your point and just challenged your thinking on it? I always find it funny on here that some people prefer to be absolutely technically correct on something, rather than just letting a symbol be a symbol, imperfect as all symbols are. As someone who grew up in the 1980's, anytime the clock moved, it made the nightly news. PS: we do move the clock back and forth for Daylight Savings Time, or to adjust the it when it's off -- A clock is afterall a human construct.