4 ms·

> I use the term because I see NO factual basis for assuming that humankind is going extinct. Your post did not change my view on that: There is a huge differe

> I use the term because I see NO factual basis for assuming that humankind is going extinct. Your post did not change my view on that: There is a huge difference between I do NOT want to see, and there is NO factual basis. From https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities only 1170 cities have population of 2,179,929,822, RS-28 Sarmat yield is 10 heavy warheads, each yield of 1.5Mt. Currently there is 3,700 nukes deployed and 13,132 nukes total. We do not know what China has so those number are without it. With the new hyper-sonic weapons time to react and go to shelter which in London practically does not exist except underground transport, so to get to nearest station you would need 30 min but nuke needs 15 min to arrive. Let's suppose that one Sarmat is enough to level town size of London or Paris. So only with firstly deployed there would be 2200 nukes to spare. But what about heavier nukes those 10Mt yields, what about revamping Tsar Bomba with 50Mt (8km fireball, 68 km mushroom cloud and shock waves circling Earth 3 times). So, what exactly will intercept hyper-sonic? So when you say estimate 1.6 to 3bn I would rather say it is very optimistic, and that only from the blasts. Next goes fallout... are you saying no one will die out cancer in full exchange? It will be all ok after 5 years? EMP would wiped out grid and internet, what will exactly pump water? What are you going to drink? Quickly made filter from charcoal and that will do? And to what hospital are you going to go if you scratch on rusty nail for instance? Next, what are you going to eat, 80% of food in UK is imported, https://www.businessinsider.com/no-deal-brexit-percentage-british-food-imported-shortages-2019-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/no-deal-brexit-percentage-br... there is no more ships with food and oil? Where are you going to get money banks are out, no plastic cards, cash does not worth anything? do you have silver or gold? How many will die out of hunger in next 10 years? And what about nuclear power plants 450 of them? They are not the same like nukes, nukes burn their fission material, but as we know from Fukushima Daiichi Accident and Chernobyl disaster, they were quite tricky, and there we managed to do something about it. Who will go to "fix" nuclear power planets after exchange, so plenty of fallout there? As I said it would not be extinction but 99% reduction, and those who survive would wish they have not. By the way I am not trying to convince anyone people have had too many video survival games with happy ending, and to test reality you just need to go to near by woods for 7 days without food and water, and what ever experience you have just multiply by 300 times. Going back to first line, > your post did not change my view I somehow find more frighting and delusional that way of thinking, as it leaves possibility to use mentioned as solution for fixing problem as people optimistically believe they are the one that will survive. There is a reason why "Mutually assured destruction" and "nuclear deterrence" exist as such, as no one will ever attempt any such idiotic thing. As what we model usually does not correspond with reality. And when you know that everyone will loose like in the move "War games" then only way to win is not to play a game. And if current narrow AI can do it today I hope you as far superior intelligence can come to the same conclusion.

myrmidon 5y ago
> I somehow find more frighting and delusional that way of thinking, as it leaves possibility to use mentioned as solution for fixing problem as people optimistically believe they are the one that will survive. I'll give you the other perspective on the doom-erism: People preaching about the inevitable extinction of humankind just provide ammunition/"strawmans" against progressive climate policies because these doom-prophecies are obvious bullshit and everyone not in an echo bubble knows it. Just consider how easy it was to dismiss your "humankind is going extinct because of climate change" points-- because it IS BULLSHIT. Climate change is NOT going to lead to human extinction, and preaching this just steals credibility and hinders much more than it helps by polarizing society/preventing consensus. As for the nuclear threat: > only 1170 cities have population of 2,179,929,822 First: These are metropolitan areas, not cities. One warhead per area is not even going to kill a fraction of the people. Consider: Tokyo metro region is 14000 km^2. Fireball size for a 10Mt warhead is <20km^2 (no larger warheads are in use and there would be no point). The highest estimate I found (3E9 victims) assumed 3 warheads per region I think, which is pretty similar to the numbers you came up with. Taking all the aftereffects into account, you'll maybe get past the 50% population mark, but that is still not human extinction.
- NiceWayToDoIT 5y ago
  > Just consider how easy it was to dismiss your "humankind is going extinct because of climate change" points- You have to understand that you have not dismissed anything, you do not have knowledge you have beliefs, judging by the angry typing. There is no point discussing with believes. Regarding full fledged nuclear exchange I would ask you to write a paper and make computer model, I do not know what is your field of work do you have a sufficient knowledge to do it? Regarding Global Warming it is fairly uncharted territory, now we know that models from 10 years ago were overly optimistic and that things are happening at much faster rate than expected. Anyhow, to cut the long unfruitful story short, lets remember this and check in 5 and 10 years what happens.
  - myrmidon 5y ago
    > You have to understand that you have not dismissed anything, you do not have knowledge you have beliefs, judging by the angry typing. There is no point discussing with believes. I'm not a believer. Show me scientific papers that credibly warn about human extinction because of climate change, and I will change my view immediately (hint: the IPCC reports DONT, and those pretty much mirror the current scientific consensus). But what would it take to change your belief that humankind is likely to go extinct because of climate change? > Regarding Global Warming it is fairly uncharted territory, now we know that models from 10 years ago were overly optimistic and that things are happening at much faster rate than expected. Maybe. But projected outcomes have not really changed. Hansen et al (in "Science", 1981) alluded to potential flooding of ~25% of Lousiana/Florida, given the total loss of the west-antarctic ice shield (= +5m sea level). This is WAAAAYYYYY worse than what any current model predicts for even the absolute worst case in 2100, but even this scenario would not lead to human extinction, not by a long shot. > Regarding full fledged nuclear exchange I would ask you to write a paper and make computer model, I do not know what is your field of work do you have a sufficient knowledge to do it? There is no point: We agree on the facts, basically that there are not enought nukes to blast even half of humankind and fallout/nuclear winter won't suffice to kill the rest. But if you want an interactive computer model check this out: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

myrmidon 5y ago

> I somehow find more frighting and delusional that way of thinking, as it leaves possibility to use mentioned as solution for fixing problem as people optimistically believe they are the one that will survive. I'll give you the other perspective on the doom-erism: People preaching about the inevitable extinction of humankind just provide ammunition/"strawmans" against progressive climate policies because these doom-prophecies are obvious bullshit and everyone not in an echo bubble knows it. Just consider how easy it was to dismiss your "humankind is going extinct because of climate change" points-- because it IS BULLSHIT. Climate change is NOT going to lead to human extinction, and preaching this just steals credibility and hinders much more than it helps by polarizing society/preventing consensus. As for the nuclear threat: > only 1170 cities have population of 2,179,929,822 First: These are metropolitan areas, not cities. One warhead per area is not even going to kill a fraction of the people. Consider: Tokyo metro region is 14000 km^2. Fireball size for a 10Mt warhead is <20km^2 (no larger warheads are in use and there would be no point). The highest estimate I found (3E9 victims) assumed 3 warheads per region I think, which is pretty similar to the numbers you came up with. Taking all the aftereffects into account, you'll maybe get past the 50% population mark, but that is still not human extinction.

NiceWayToDoIT 5y ago
> Just consider how easy it was to dismiss your "humankind is going extinct because of climate change" points- You have to understand that you have not dismissed anything, you do not have knowledge you have beliefs, judging by the angry typing. There is no point discussing with believes. Regarding full fledged nuclear exchange I would ask you to write a paper and make computer model, I do not know what is your field of work do you have a sufficient knowledge to do it? Regarding Global Warming it is fairly uncharted territory, now we know that models from 10 years ago were overly optimistic and that things are happening at much faster rate than expected. Anyhow, to cut the long unfruitful story short, lets remember this and check in 5 and 10 years what happens.
- myrmidon 5y ago
  > You have to understand that you have not dismissed anything, you do not have knowledge you have beliefs, judging by the angry typing. There is no point discussing with believes. I'm not a believer. Show me scientific papers that credibly warn about human extinction because of climate change, and I will change my view immediately (hint: the IPCC reports DONT, and those pretty much mirror the current scientific consensus). But what would it take to change your belief that humankind is likely to go extinct because of climate change? > Regarding Global Warming it is fairly uncharted territory, now we know that models from 10 years ago were overly optimistic and that things are happening at much faster rate than expected. Maybe. But projected outcomes have not really changed. Hansen et al (in "Science", 1981) alluded to potential flooding of ~25% of Lousiana/Florida, given the total loss of the west-antarctic ice shield (= +5m sea level). This is WAAAAYYYYY worse than what any current model predicts for even the absolute worst case in 2100, but even this scenario would not lead to human extinction, not by a long shot. > Regarding full fledged nuclear exchange I would ask you to write a paper and make computer model, I do not know what is your field of work do you have a sufficient knowledge to do it? There is no point: We agree on the facts, basically that there are not enought nukes to blast even half of humankind and fallout/nuclear winter won't suffice to kill the rest. But if you want an interactive computer model check this out: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/