7 ms·

I know we're not supposed to question why a link was posted here, but... why? ;) I mean I thought about a lot of bad scenarios and how to prepare for them, but

I know we're not supposed to question why a link was posted here, but... why? ;) I mean I thought about a lot of bad scenarios and how to prepare for them, but a nuclear war is probably not survivable, you're just going to prolong the pain a few more days / months. To have any chance you probably would have to stay at least 5 years in an underground bunker. The guys on the TV shows Alone (I'm watching the first season now) are getting crazy just after a couple weeks of isolation. The Germans have an excellent saying for these kind of situations: better an horrible end than an horror without end (sorry if my translation isn't accurate).

_Microft 5y ago
It was mentioned in the thread on the Castle Bravo nuclear test and OP had a good intuition that it might catch on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28478338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28478338 Edit: sigh, another PDF on my digital tsundoku pile ("in"? - as it is resembling a set more than it does a stack?).
runawaybottle 5y ago
The Germans have an excellent saying for these kind of situations: better an horrible end than an horror without end (sorry if my translation isn't accurate). You are the reason I come to HN. Sometimes we know, but few can say it. Thanks.
the_third_wave 5y ago
> but... why? ;) Because it is interesting? Because it is one of those things which fits in the frame of mind of many a hacker-type? For the same reason that some of us wear hiking boots in the server hall, just in case a mountain might spring up there? > a nuclear war is probably not survivable Of course it is, just look at how Japan came out of one. Would it be a pleasant experience? No, of course not, but the same was true for Hamburg, Tokyo and Dresden during the fire bombings, London during the Blitz, Stalingrad during the beleaguerment, the northern part of the Netherlands during the "hunger" winter of '44-'45. We like to read about war, watch movies about war, sing songs about war, create and look at art about war but few people actually want to experience war. > at least 5 years in an underground bunker As long as only "normal" nuclear weapons are used a few weeks would probably be enough, long enough for the fallout to be washed away by rain. The next step would be to leave the area and head for "the hills" - or any other area which was not directly attacked nor in the fallout plume of an attack.
- rdevsrex 5y ago
  I read somewhere that some nuclear ware strategists considered a 30-40% global fatality rate an acceptable outcome of nuclear war, which lead to the idea of strike first being ok. I hate to think what an advanced AI would do if it thinks the best things for humanity is less humans. An anti-natalist AI with nukes is not a good thing.
  - the_third_wave 5y ago
    There is no need for an AI to come up with such a sentiment, there are plenty of people who see humans as a plague on the earth which it is better off without. The chance of some of these people triggering a nuclear exchange far exceeds the change of some future W.O.P.R. [1] getting the world into a conflict. [1] https://www.dataplusscience.com/WOPR/wargames.html https://www.dataplusscience.com/WOPR/wargames.html
    - forgetfulness 5y ago
      I think you're just taking general feelings of frustration for humanity's short-sightnedness a tad too seriously, I've yet to see any group wanting to organize the demise of humanity based on what usually drives those sentiments, like the destruction of nature or cruelty towards animals and humans, in comparison to, say... Religious people making decisions with far-reaching consequences based on their religion's eschatology.
      - the_third_wave 5y ago
        I'm not so much thinking of people who want to totally eradicate humanity - these do exist [1] but they'll find it hard to gain enough adherents to get themselves in the position to trigger a nuclear exchange. The people I'm thinking of are those who'd like to see the world population reduced to what they consider to be a 'sustainable' level - neo-Malthusianists, radical Ecrocritics, etc. As you mentioned above there are also those who'd like to 'immanentise the eschaton' driven by religious zeal, e.g. Islamic State awaited the army of “Rome,” whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, would initiate the countdown to the apocalypse [2]. They did not succeed but the recent fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban might spell trouble for neighbouring Pakistan - a nuclear power - where the intelligence service ISI is suspected of being more loyal to extremists than to the Pakistani government [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Mov... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-is... [3] search for 'Pakistan ISI extremists' or something similar
bbarnett 5y ago
but a nuclear war is probably not survivable Do read the first chapter of the linked webpage.
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  I'll do, but I'm pretty sure the author is assuming one nuke detonating in your area. If this is a nuclear war there's a good chance thousands of nukes will be detonated.
  - bbarnett 5y ago
    No, no the author isn't discussing one nuke. I think you are the one assuming, twice now, not the author...
goda90 5y ago
Why try to survive? That's something people have to ask themselves individually really. I took a wilderness survival course in college. We were usually out in a park practicing skills, but one day we just stayed in the classroom and our teacher talked about what drives people to survive extreme situations, even when they have little experience or training to do so. He brought up cases of parents going the extra mile to save the child they were lost with. He mentioned Hugh Glass and his drive for revenge after being left for dead from a bear mauling. Viktor Frankl observed a concentration camp prisoner who was always optimistic until the day he saw his family brought into the camp, and then he died soon after. For some people it could be a biological urge to keep living. Or maybe their religious beliefs drive them.
- nosianu 5y ago
  One of the best authors for these kinds of stories (about hard-core survival) is Jack London. You can even select a theme: Tropical islands and storms, ships and the ocean, or ice-cold Yukon and gold rush? Animal centric (Call of the Wild, White Fang)?
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  > Why try to survive? I don't question trying to survive bad scenarios in general but nuclear in particular. People seem to say a nuke isn't as bad as we think, but the problem is that in case of a nuclear war, there won't be only one nuke, so the amount of radioactivity will be very high and a nuclear winter mean that even if you survive radioactivity nothing will grow for at least 5 years so you'll end up starving. I could see myself try to take on a "Mad Max" like scenario, not a nuclear one.
duxup 5y ago
When I think about it I certainly wouldn't want to have my family live through it. But I would like to ... see what happens. Maybe try some effort to record observations and such, bury it in the hopes someone finds it. It might be horrible, but I can of course end it at anytime if I wish. I would not expect any kind of comfortable long term survival.
horsawlarway 5y ago
This is addressed right up front in the book, interestingly enough. > "While working with hundreds of Americans building expedient shelters and life-support equipment, I have found that many people at first see no sense in talking about details of survival skills. Those who hold exaggerated beliefs about the dangers from nuclear weapons must first be convinced that nuclear war would not inevitably be the end of them and everything worthwhile. Only after they have begun to question the truth of these myths do they become interested, under normal peacetime conditions, in acquiring nuclear war survival skills. Therefore, before giving detailed instructions for making and using survival equipment, we will examine the most harmful of the myths about nuclear war dangers, along with some of the grim facts."
- arethuza 5y ago
  That's nice if you are in a rural part of the US - less so if you are in densely populated and heavily targetted (at least during the Cold War) locations like the UK. Edit: Optimistic estimates by the UK government predicted 65% of population killed (53%) or seriously wounded (12%) in the short term - a real attack is likely to have been much worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg NB This optimistic scenarios was used in the writing of Threads. Edit: Think about that: Threads was optimistic!
- TechBro8615 5y ago
  For me the lack of urgency in “prepping” for existential disasters is that I have far more pressing concerns, like avoiding bankruptcy and homelessness. If I were sitting on a mountain of cash and hard assets, I would be more willing to invest in prepping. But until then, I’ve got little to protect anyway, and I’m not about to drop $800 on filling a bag with some supplies to last me a week in the apocalypse. Surviving post-collapse would be an adventure for everyone, but an unpleasant one for most. I’ve found the best way to resolve any existential concern is to continue working on long term goals of wealth acquisition and self improvement. Come the apocalypse, I’d rather be the guy with the army than the ex-programmer begging for food in exchange for repairing a home owner’s smart fridge.
  - 5y ago
Ekaros 5y ago
I have really considered same. Why bother. The surviving part is harsh, but what comes after that? Most modern nice things will be gone for years. Would that really be even worth living?
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  About what comes after: Our ancestors lived with a lot worse than that. The people who walked across the US on the Oregon trail did it. I’m sure we could do it too.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Just because some people lived in forests before me and burned down them to farm or ate the trees don't mean I want to do that...
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  Honestly I wouldn't mind loosing modern nice things, as long as I can go outside and trying to get food in a "normal" environment. Puking blood while cancer eats me from inside, starving because animals are dead and the sun is hidden so no agriculture... way too much for me.
Borrible 5y ago
'Better an end with horror than horror without an end.' A saying attributed to Ferdinand von Schill, shortly before his death fighting in the streets of Stralsund. Von Schill is a, in the wider population, mostly forgotten 'German' or better Prussian hero of an uprising against french occupation in Napoleonic times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_von_Schill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_von_Schill
- techer 5y ago
  Stolen from Reddit: A slight correction: the fixed phrase in German is "Lieber ein Ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne Ende", which translates as "Better a horrifying ending than a horror without end"
  - Borrible 5y ago
    Oh, its fine. Translation is interpretation. So, mine is not the the only valid one. And, it's a saying handed down by people admiring his determination. I'm German.
    - techer 5y ago
      Didn’t say it wasn’t fine. Thanks for your input though. I’m English
SavantIdiot 5y ago
Have you forgotten the Great Toilet Paper Riots of 2020? We're having trouble surviving a (reasonably mild by comparison) pandemic as a species that has killed millions! Now multiply what we've seen by several orders of magnitude. With all the greed and guns in the USA... oof.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  And when the global manufacturing, logistics and supply chains actually break down. It won't be pretty...
- echoradio 5y ago
  I live in an affluent area that gets hurricanes. You know when a storm is coming because certain shelves of goods are wiped out — non-perishable items, bread, water. When the pandemic hit, these were the same items people hoarded (in addition to toilet paper). Why? The pandemic wasn’t going to shut off a fridge/freezer. It wasn’t going to disable the water system. People reacted in the only way they knew for a crisis they experience often — not what the actual situation was. It served as a reminder that when a major, acute crisis hits, most people are not going to be thinking rationally. They’re going to rely on whatever instincts have been developed. I can’t even imagine what extremes would result from a fast-moving crisis like a nuclear explosion.
  - elihu 5y ago
    Early in the pandemic we didn't know the degree to which the supply chains would be shut down. I mean, you had footage from Wuhan where things really were seriously locked down and people basically didn't leave their houses. I'm not surprised all the beans and rice and pasta and oats vanished from the shelves. In the end our version of "shutdown" was much milder, but we didn't know that at the beginning. We were rather fortunate that delta variant didn't come along until our vaccination program was well on its way.
reducesuffering 5y ago
What it really comes down to is that with or without this info you most likely live your life mostly the same until a catastrophe strikes. When it does you’re either dead or need to make a new life. Now based on your saying, are you going to really off yourself voluntarily, or will you make the best of a bad situation? And if you are going to make the best of it, it would’ve been real nice to study about what supplies to have prepared and what you’re going to do now, rather than go blind, and without the internet resources to help you anymore.
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  Either you take a massive dose of radioactivity (nuclear war means several nukes) and suffer horribly 'till death or you starve because nuclear winter. I have read about it a long time ago so don't quote me on this, but a nuclear winter is supposed to last at least 5 years. Do you have the financial means and space to store that much food and rotate it regularly? I don't and frankly I'd rather not bother. Once nuclear winter is over, do you know how to grow your own food? You might not be able to hunt because all animals will either be dead or killed by other hunters. This scenario is very very hard to overcome. Not impossible, but only a few very prepared and or very lucky individuals would survive.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    You're overestimating the cost to store years of food (dense portions of dried beans, rice, chocolate, liquor, etc; rough estimate $120 / twelve 20-lb bags of rice per person per year) and the basic educational precautions that can mean a world of quality of life; the kind of precautions you won't be able to educate yourself on if something does happen, you'll have to rely on previous gathered knowledge. Things like how to best shelter at impact and prevent exposure to radioactivity after the fact.

_Microft 5y ago

It was mentioned in the thread on the Castle Bravo nuclear test and OP had a good intuition that it might catch on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28478338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28478338 Edit: sigh, another PDF on my digital tsundoku pile ("in"? - as it is resembling a set more than it does a stack?).

runawaybottle 5y ago

The Germans have an excellent saying for these kind of situations: better an horrible end than an horror without end (sorry if my translation isn't accurate). You are the reason I come to HN. Sometimes we know, but few can say it. Thanks.

the_third_wave 5y ago

> but... why? ;) Because it is interesting? Because it is one of those things which fits in the frame of mind of many a hacker-type? For the same reason that some of us wear hiking boots in the server hall, just in case a mountain might spring up there? > a nuclear war is probably not survivable Of course it is, just look at how Japan came out of one. Would it be a pleasant experience? No, of course not, but the same was true for Hamburg, Tokyo and Dresden during the fire bombings, London during the Blitz, Stalingrad during the beleaguerment, the northern part of the Netherlands during the "hunger" winter of '44-'45. We like to read about war, watch movies about war, sing songs about war, create and look at art about war but few people actually want to experience war. > at least 5 years in an underground bunker As long as only "normal" nuclear weapons are used a few weeks would probably be enough, long enough for the fallout to be washed away by rain. The next step would be to leave the area and head for "the hills" - or any other area which was not directly attacked nor in the fallout plume of an attack.

rdevsrex 5y ago
I read somewhere that some nuclear ware strategists considered a 30-40% global fatality rate an acceptable outcome of nuclear war, which lead to the idea of strike first being ok. I hate to think what an advanced AI would do if it thinks the best things for humanity is less humans. An anti-natalist AI with nukes is not a good thing.
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  There is no need for an AI to come up with such a sentiment, there are plenty of people who see humans as a plague on the earth which it is better off without. The chance of some of these people triggering a nuclear exchange far exceeds the change of some future W.O.P.R. [1] getting the world into a conflict. [1] https://www.dataplusscience.com/WOPR/wargames.html https://www.dataplusscience.com/WOPR/wargames.html
  - forgetfulness 5y ago
    I think you're just taking general feelings of frustration for humanity's short-sightnedness a tad too seriously, I've yet to see any group wanting to organize the demise of humanity based on what usually drives those sentiments, like the destruction of nature or cruelty towards animals and humans, in comparison to, say... Religious people making decisions with far-reaching consequences based on their religion's eschatology.
    - the_third_wave 5y ago
      I'm not so much thinking of people who want to totally eradicate humanity - these do exist [1] but they'll find it hard to gain enough adherents to get themselves in the position to trigger a nuclear exchange. The people I'm thinking of are those who'd like to see the world population reduced to what they consider to be a 'sustainable' level - neo-Malthusianists, radical Ecrocritics, etc. As you mentioned above there are also those who'd like to 'immanentise the eschaton' driven by religious zeal, e.g. Islamic State awaited the army of “Rome,” whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, would initiate the countdown to the apocalypse [2]. They did not succeed but the recent fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban might spell trouble for neighbouring Pakistan - a nuclear power - where the intelligence service ISI is suspected of being more loyal to extremists than to the Pakistani government [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Mov... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-is... [3] search for 'Pakistan ISI extremists' or something similar

bbarnett 5y ago

but a nuclear war is probably not survivable Do read the first chapter of the linked webpage.

jmnicolas 5y ago
I'll do, but I'm pretty sure the author is assuming one nuke detonating in your area. If this is a nuclear war there's a good chance thousands of nukes will be detonated.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  No, no the author isn't discussing one nuke. I think you are the one assuming, twice now, not the author...

goda90 5y ago

Why try to survive? That's something people have to ask themselves individually really. I took a wilderness survival course in college. We were usually out in a park practicing skills, but one day we just stayed in the classroom and our teacher talked about what drives people to survive extreme situations, even when they have little experience or training to do so. He brought up cases of parents going the extra mile to save the child they were lost with. He mentioned Hugh Glass and his drive for revenge after being left for dead from a bear mauling. Viktor Frankl observed a concentration camp prisoner who was always optimistic until the day he saw his family brought into the camp, and then he died soon after. For some people it could be a biological urge to keep living. Or maybe their religious beliefs drive them.

nosianu 5y ago
One of the best authors for these kinds of stories (about hard-core survival) is Jack London. You can even select a theme: Tropical islands and storms, ships and the ocean, or ice-cold Yukon and gold rush? Animal centric (Call of the Wild, White Fang)?
jmnicolas 5y ago
> Why try to survive? I don't question trying to survive bad scenarios in general but nuclear in particular. People seem to say a nuke isn't as bad as we think, but the problem is that in case of a nuclear war, there won't be only one nuke, so the amount of radioactivity will be very high and a nuclear winter mean that even if you survive radioactivity nothing will grow for at least 5 years so you'll end up starving. I could see myself try to take on a "Mad Max" like scenario, not a nuclear one.

duxup 5y ago

When I think about it I certainly wouldn't want to have my family live through it. But I would like to ... see what happens. Maybe try some effort to record observations and such, bury it in the hopes someone finds it. It might be horrible, but I can of course end it at anytime if I wish. I would not expect any kind of comfortable long term survival.

horsawlarway 5y ago

This is addressed right up front in the book, interestingly enough. > "While working with hundreds of Americans building expedient shelters and life-support equipment, I have found that many people at first see no sense in talking about details of survival skills. Those who hold exaggerated beliefs about the dangers from nuclear weapons must first be convinced that nuclear war would not inevitably be the end of them and everything worthwhile. Only after they have begun to question the truth of these myths do they become interested, under normal peacetime conditions, in acquiring nuclear war survival skills. Therefore, before giving detailed instructions for making and using survival equipment, we will examine the most harmful of the myths about nuclear war dangers, along with some of the grim facts."

arethuza 5y ago
That's nice if you are in a rural part of the US - less so if you are in densely populated and heavily targetted (at least during the Cold War) locations like the UK. Edit: Optimistic estimates by the UK government predicted 65% of population killed (53%) or seriously wounded (12%) in the short term - a real attack is likely to have been much worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg NB This optimistic scenarios was used in the writing of Threads. Edit: Think about that: Threads was optimistic!
TechBro8615 5y ago
For me the lack of urgency in “prepping” for existential disasters is that I have far more pressing concerns, like avoiding bankruptcy and homelessness. If I were sitting on a mountain of cash and hard assets, I would be more willing to invest in prepping. But until then, I’ve got little to protect anyway, and I’m not about to drop $800 on filling a bag with some supplies to last me a week in the apocalypse. Surviving post-collapse would be an adventure for everyone, but an unpleasant one for most. I’ve found the best way to resolve any existential concern is to continue working on long term goals of wealth acquisition and self improvement. Come the apocalypse, I’d rather be the guy with the army than the ex-programmer begging for food in exchange for repairing a home owner’s smart fridge.
- 5y ago

Ekaros 5y ago

I have really considered same. Why bother. The surviving part is harsh, but what comes after that? Most modern nice things will be gone for years. Would that really be even worth living?

amanaplanacanal 5y ago
About what comes after: Our ancestors lived with a lot worse than that. The people who walked across the US on the Oregon trail did it. I’m sure we could do it too.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Just because some people lived in forests before me and burned down them to farm or ate the trees don't mean I want to do that...
jmnicolas 5y ago
Honestly I wouldn't mind loosing modern nice things, as long as I can go outside and trying to get food in a "normal" environment. Puking blood while cancer eats me from inside, starving because animals are dead and the sun is hidden so no agriculture... way too much for me.

Borrible 5y ago

'Better an end with horror than horror without an end.' A saying attributed to Ferdinand von Schill, shortly before his death fighting in the streets of Stralsund. Von Schill is a, in the wider population, mostly forgotten 'German' or better Prussian hero of an uprising against french occupation in Napoleonic times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_von_Schill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_von_Schill

techer 5y ago
Stolen from Reddit: A slight correction: the fixed phrase in German is "Lieber ein Ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne Ende", which translates as "Better a horrifying ending than a horror without end"
- Borrible 5y ago
  Oh, its fine. Translation is interpretation. So, mine is not the the only valid one. And, it's a saying handed down by people admiring his determination. I'm German.
  - techer 5y ago
    Didn’t say it wasn’t fine. Thanks for your input though. I’m English

SavantIdiot 5y ago

Have you forgotten the Great Toilet Paper Riots of 2020? We're having trouble surviving a (reasonably mild by comparison) pandemic as a species that has killed millions! Now multiply what we've seen by several orders of magnitude. With all the greed and guns in the USA... oof.

Ekaros 5y ago
And when the global manufacturing, logistics and supply chains actually break down. It won't be pretty...
echoradio 5y ago
I live in an affluent area that gets hurricanes. You know when a storm is coming because certain shelves of goods are wiped out — non-perishable items, bread, water. When the pandemic hit, these were the same items people hoarded (in addition to toilet paper). Why? The pandemic wasn’t going to shut off a fridge/freezer. It wasn’t going to disable the water system. People reacted in the only way they knew for a crisis they experience often — not what the actual situation was. It served as a reminder that when a major, acute crisis hits, most people are not going to be thinking rationally. They’re going to rely on whatever instincts have been developed. I can’t even imagine what extremes would result from a fast-moving crisis like a nuclear explosion.
- elihu 5y ago
  Early in the pandemic we didn't know the degree to which the supply chains would be shut down. I mean, you had footage from Wuhan where things really were seriously locked down and people basically didn't leave their houses. I'm not surprised all the beans and rice and pasta and oats vanished from the shelves. In the end our version of "shutdown" was much milder, but we didn't know that at the beginning. We were rather fortunate that delta variant didn't come along until our vaccination program was well on its way.

reducesuffering 5y ago

What it really comes down to is that with or without this info you most likely live your life mostly the same until a catastrophe strikes. When it does you’re either dead or need to make a new life. Now based on your saying, are you going to really off yourself voluntarily, or will you make the best of a bad situation? And if you are going to make the best of it, it would’ve been real nice to study about what supplies to have prepared and what you’re going to do now, rather than go blind, and without the internet resources to help you anymore.

jmnicolas 5y ago
Either you take a massive dose of radioactivity (nuclear war means several nukes) and suffer horribly 'till death or you starve because nuclear winter. I have read about it a long time ago so don't quote me on this, but a nuclear winter is supposed to last at least 5 years. Do you have the financial means and space to store that much food and rotate it regularly? I don't and frankly I'd rather not bother. Once nuclear winter is over, do you know how to grow your own food? You might not be able to hunt because all animals will either be dead or killed by other hunters. This scenario is very very hard to overcome. Not impossible, but only a few very prepared and or very lucky individuals would survive.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  You're overestimating the cost to store years of food (dense portions of dried beans, rice, chocolate, liquor, etc; rough estimate $120 / twelve 20-lb bags of rice per person per year) and the basic educational precautions that can mean a world of quality of life; the kind of precautions you won't be able to educate yourself on if something does happen, you'll have to rely on previous gathered knowledge. Things like how to best shelter at impact and prevent exposure to radioactivity after the fact.