12 ms·

After reading the book, its pretty clear why most world leaders abandoned the idea of thermonuclear war as anything but a culpable strategy. Nuclear weapons wi

After reading the book, its pretty clear why most world leaders abandoned the idea of thermonuclear war as anything but a culpable strategy. Nuclear weapons with a twenty (or more) mile radius of fallout have the immediate ability to bridge the class divide. Whereas traditional munitions disproportionately interact with the poor (soldiers and combatants) a nuclear detonation could thrust an opulent family into fallout bunker squalor in mere minutes, and pin them there for half a decade. the prospect of survival contingent not on your wealth as in a traditional war, but on your interpersonal and improvisational survival skill was certainly looked upon with scorn.

howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
Worry more about accidental or forced use. Worry less about intentional use.
- nimbius 5y ago
  What i was trying to get at I think was the supreme irony of the apex of the cold war...that a nation so bent on the destruction of class through marxist leninism forged in turn the perfect sword to obliterate it, and that its capitalist enemy at the time seemed to have no choice but to pursue an utterly nihilist brinksmanship it knew it was forbidden to pursue in any spirit other than rote patriotism. the history of the bay of pigs comes to mind. Fidel Castro, in my opinion, may have been the only communist to have the outright conviction to use nuclear arms, save Leonid Brezhnevs legendary temper and the Brezhnev doctrines closed fisted threat to glass the soviet states who fell out of line.
  - SavantIdiot 5y ago
    I'd really like to know why you're getting downvoted. This is a fascinating observation.
  - chasd00 5y ago
    During the Cuban Missile Crisis Castro was certainly ready to use them and certainly ready to suffer the consequences. Clip from Fog of War https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    He's unironically admired by some western leaders! https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/world/justin-trudeau-castro-eulogy-parody/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/world/justin-trudeau-castro-e...
wongarsu 5y ago
On the other hand the replacement of existing hierarchies with meritocracy seems to be one of the appealing things of post-apocalyptic scenarios for average people.
- Iolaum 5y ago
  Until you factor in there that merit in immoral behaviors such as pillaging, looting and bullying will also be a big factor.
- mtoner23 5y ago
  Post apocalyptic meritocracy doesn't poll very well last i checked
  - kypro 5y ago
    Worse, it doesn't even seem realistic. Far more likely you'll have anarchy and those with the resources to do so will create social hierarchies.
    - swader999 5y ago
      Yes, watch or read The Road.
      - ProjectArcturis 5y ago
        No thank you, once is enough.
        swader999 5y ago
        Indeed.
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      You'd just get rule by sociopaths - as usual. No genuine meritocracy anywhere.
eplanit 5y ago
The (proper) strategic idea was as a deterrent, not _wanting_ to use them in an offensive manner. The strategy was in making an attack on "us" carry the high probability of annihilation of the attacker, thereby discouraging it -- it wasn't about "hey, let's nuke that country, then we'll gain an advantage".
- fossuser 5y ago
  That came later iirc - initially they were thinking of using them prior to running infantry in. I think there are old public test videos where they actually did this kind of thing. I also recall a group of scientists trying to elevate the understanding of the e-risk (pugwash conference?). Basically people were becoming too comfortable with the idea of nuclear war because they knew how to “duck and cover” and had a little bomb shelter in the yard. See this: https://youtu.be/IKqXu-5jw60 https://youtu.be/IKqXu-5jw60 Dr. Strangelove is also worth watching for a satirical take from that time.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> The (proper) strategic idea was as a deterrent, not _wanting_ to use them in an offensive manner. The strategy was in making an attack on "us" carry the high probability of annihilation for the attacker, thereby discouraging it -- it wasn't about "hey, let's nuke that country, then we'll gain an advantage". > That came later iirc - initially they were thinking of using them prior to running infantry in. I think you have to differentiate strategic and battlefield usages. IIRC, some people considered using them strategically when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind. However, the Soviets had them within five years and the Chinese had them by 1965, I think. I think tactical battlefield uses were on the table for much longer, because NATO felt like it could not win a conventional war in Europe, but that may have taken the form a nuking a corn field on your border (maybe even in your territory) that the invading army is passing through. It sounds like Russia may still have similar plans ("escalate to de-escalate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon).
    - genericuser314 5y ago
xyzzy21 5y ago
Pretty much and especially if you live in a city - really no survival is possible. However, some in rural areas would survive - the odds would not be good but some would so humanity would survive the "eye of the needle" this would cause. Just not most people individually.
- toss1 5y ago
  Pretty close approximation for cities, although it depends on the city geography & wind, the yield & number of denotations, etc. The most common first impression does seem to be that "of course it's not survivable, why even think about it?". However, a quick look at any map of effects shows that the zone of survivable effects extends far beyond the reach of lethal effects, to the extent that 90%+ of the total affected zone is quite survivable for those who manage to avoid the initial thermal radiation and flying debris from the shock wave. Of course there are many who wouldn't want to live in the aftermath, but that is a different question.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    > Of course there are many who wouldn't want to live in the aftermath, but that is a different question. A pretty important one, I think. Paramount to, "Would you like to live in hell?" And especially having children - you'd need to be extremely stupid or sadist to have a child in such a world, especially knowing the high chances of them being born malformed etc.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      Birth defects are not the problem here. Even cities which were bombed in wwii didn’t have extreme levels of birth defects. The numbers I have seen estimate an increase from the current 6% to something like 6.1% after nuclear war. The completely breakdown of power generation and supply chains would be a much bigger threat.
      - zxcvbn4038 5y ago
        Supply chain and food production/preservation would be the biggest issue. Not having antibiotics would have a huge impact. I find it interesting that survivalist literature goes into so much detail on so many topics never seems to cover medical stuff. What do you do for birth control after the apocalypse? How can you make an antibiotic? How can you make an anesthetic? I’ve seen YouTube videos for making chloroform but never details how to use it.
SavantIdiot 5y ago
> the prospect of survival contingent not on your wealth as in a traditional war This hadn't occurred to me. And it makes perfect sense. See: all the rich techbros buying up land in New Zealand [1], or the Bush family buying up aquifer land in Paraguay[2]: get away from the blast zones! Did you read this from a book? I'd be interested in it. [1] Crazy prepper site but a good article: https://tacticalgunsurvival.com/why-rich-preppers-buy-land-in-new-zealand/ https://tacticalgunsurvival.com/why-rich-preppers-buy-land-i... [2] https://5minforecast.com/2015/04/24/why-did-george-bush-buy-nearly-300000-acres-in-paraguay/ https://5minforecast.com/2015/04/24/why-did-george-bush-buy-...
JohnnyHerz 5y ago
I see that you skipped the topic of Nuclear Warfare and went straight to Class Warfare. I surmise that you have a political point of view you wish to propagate.
hollerith 5y ago
>pin them there for half a decade Try 3 weeks (details in the submitted book).
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  > Try 3 weeks Unless you starting lobbing salted nukes at each other.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Why so complicated? Just target nuclear power and reprocessing plants.
  - hollerith 5y ago
    Has any nation built a salted nuke?
pvg 5y ago
Universal conscription, 'total war' efforts, etc, have crossed class divides for the better part of a couple of centuries and are still in wide use so that theory doesn't seem to have quite the explanatory power you're suggesting.
thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
>> the prospect of survival contingent not on your wealth as in a traditional war, but on your interpersonal and improvisational survival skill was certainly looked upon with scorn. Why wouldn't wealth come into play? The wealthy have more resources to prepare for any kind of contingency to include nuclear war: https://www.cnet.com/features/inside-the-survival-condo-nuclear-bunker-protecting-the-ultrarich-hacking-the-apocalypse/ https://www.cnet.com/features/inside-the-survival-condo-nucl... Granted, the reaction time needed to get into a protective bunker is greatly reduced in a thermonuclear first strike, but the poor don't even have a survival bunker to escape to.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  It would be dependent on the reasons one is wealthy. I.e. if one is good at leading and organizing others, that is a great survival skill.
phreeza 5y ago
If you are unprepared and don't make use of your resources before war comes to your doorstep, conventional war also bridges class divides just fine.
Spooky23 5y ago
Sounds like an answer seeking a question. Given that assassination of leadership has been an increasingly common tactic since WW2, I don’t think the argument holds much weight.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Snipers in the Civil War were a major factor, as their primary targets were officers. Militaries have long understood the value of decapitation of the enemy's leadership. The French conquered England in the battle of Hastings when they managed to kill the king. There were so many assassination attempts against Hitler that he spent the last couple years of the war in a bunker, and the war ended the day he died.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    True. But in Vietnam, Afghanistan (both Soviet and US conflict), and other environments, targeted assassination of civilian targets became a much bigger thing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

howmayiannoyyou 5y ago

Worry more about accidental or forced use. Worry less about intentional use.

nimbius 5y ago
What i was trying to get at I think was the supreme irony of the apex of the cold war...that a nation so bent on the destruction of class through marxist leninism forged in turn the perfect sword to obliterate it, and that its capitalist enemy at the time seemed to have no choice but to pursue an utterly nihilist brinksmanship it knew it was forbidden to pursue in any spirit other than rote patriotism. the history of the bay of pigs comes to mind. Fidel Castro, in my opinion, may have been the only communist to have the outright conviction to use nuclear arms, save Leonid Brezhnevs legendary temper and the Brezhnev doctrines closed fisted threat to glass the soviet states who fell out of line.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  I'd really like to know why you're getting downvoted. This is a fascinating observation.
- chasd00 5y ago
  During the Cuban Missile Crisis Castro was certainly ready to use them and certainly ready to suffer the consequences. Clip from Fog of War https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  He's unironically admired by some western leaders! https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/world/justin-trudeau-castro-eulogy-parody/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/world/justin-trudeau-castro-e...

wongarsu 5y ago

On the other hand the replacement of existing hierarchies with meritocracy seems to be one of the appealing things of post-apocalyptic scenarios for average people.

Iolaum 5y ago
Until you factor in there that merit in immoral behaviors such as pillaging, looting and bullying will also be a big factor.
mtoner23 5y ago
Post apocalyptic meritocracy doesn't poll very well last i checked
- kypro 5y ago
  Worse, it doesn't even seem realistic. Far more likely you'll have anarchy and those with the resources to do so will create social hierarchies.
  - swader999 5y ago
    Yes, watch or read The Road.
    - ProjectArcturis 5y ago
      No thank you, once is enough.
      - swader999 5y ago
        Indeed.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    You'd just get rule by sociopaths - as usual. No genuine meritocracy anywhere.

eplanit 5y ago

The (proper) strategic idea was as a deterrent, not _wanting_ to use them in an offensive manner. The strategy was in making an attack on "us" carry the high probability of annihilation of the attacker, thereby discouraging it -- it wasn't about "hey, let's nuke that country, then we'll gain an advantage".

fossuser 5y ago
That came later iirc - initially they were thinking of using them prior to running infantry in. I think there are old public test videos where they actually did this kind of thing. I also recall a group of scientists trying to elevate the understanding of the e-risk (pugwash conference?). Basically people were becoming too comfortable with the idea of nuclear war because they knew how to “duck and cover” and had a little bomb shelter in the yard. See this: https://youtu.be/IKqXu-5jw60 https://youtu.be/IKqXu-5jw60 Dr. Strangelove is also worth watching for a satirical take from that time.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> The (proper) strategic idea was as a deterrent, not _wanting_ to use them in an offensive manner. The strategy was in making an attack on "us" carry the high probability of annihilation for the attacker, thereby discouraging it -- it wasn't about "hey, let's nuke that country, then we'll gain an advantage". > That came later iirc - initially they were thinking of using them prior to running infantry in. I think you have to differentiate strategic and battlefield usages. IIRC, some people considered using them strategically when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind. However, the Soviets had them within five years and the Chinese had them by 1965, I think. I think tactical battlefield uses were on the table for much longer, because NATO felt like it could not win a conventional war in Europe, but that may have taken the form a nuking a corn field on your border (maybe even in your territory) that the invading army is passing through. It sounds like Russia may still have similar plans ("escalate to de-escalate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon).
  - genericuser314 5y ago

xyzzy21 5y ago

Pretty much and especially if you live in a city - really no survival is possible. However, some in rural areas would survive - the odds would not be good but some would so humanity would survive the "eye of the needle" this would cause. Just not most people individually.

toss1 5y ago
Pretty close approximation for cities, although it depends on the city geography & wind, the yield & number of denotations, etc. The most common first impression does seem to be that "of course it's not survivable, why even think about it?". However, a quick look at any map of effects shows that the zone of survivable effects extends far beyond the reach of lethal effects, to the extent that 90%+ of the total affected zone is quite survivable for those who manage to avoid the initial thermal radiation and flying debris from the shock wave. Of course there are many who wouldn't want to live in the aftermath, but that is a different question.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  > Of course there are many who wouldn't want to live in the aftermath, but that is a different question. A pretty important one, I think. Paramount to, "Would you like to live in hell?" And especially having children - you'd need to be extremely stupid or sadist to have a child in such a world, especially knowing the high chances of them being born malformed etc.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Birth defects are not the problem here. Even cities which were bombed in wwii didn’t have extreme levels of birth defects. The numbers I have seen estimate an increase from the current 6% to something like 6.1% after nuclear war. The completely breakdown of power generation and supply chains would be a much bigger threat.
    - zxcvbn4038 5y ago
      Supply chain and food production/preservation would be the biggest issue. Not having antibiotics would have a huge impact. I find it interesting that survivalist literature goes into so much detail on so many topics never seems to cover medical stuff. What do you do for birth control after the apocalypse? How can you make an antibiotic? How can you make an anesthetic? I’ve seen YouTube videos for making chloroform but never details how to use it.

SavantIdiot 5y ago

> the prospect of survival contingent not on your wealth as in a traditional war This hadn't occurred to me. And it makes perfect sense. See: all the rich techbros buying up land in New Zealand [1], or the Bush family buying up aquifer land in Paraguay[2]: get away from the blast zones! Did you read this from a book? I'd be interested in it. [1] Crazy prepper site but a good article: https://tacticalgunsurvival.com/why-rich-preppers-buy-land-in-new-zealand/ https://tacticalgunsurvival.com/why-rich-preppers-buy-land-i... [2] https://5minforecast.com/2015/04/24/why-did-george-bush-buy-nearly-300000-acres-in-paraguay/ https://5minforecast.com/2015/04/24/why-did-george-bush-buy-...

JohnnyHerz 5y ago

I see that you skipped the topic of Nuclear Warfare and went straight to Class Warfare. I surmise that you have a political point of view you wish to propagate.

hollerith 5y ago

>pin them there for half a decade Try 3 weeks (details in the submitted book).

throwaway210222 5y ago
> Try 3 weeks Unless you starting lobbing salted nukes at each other.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Why so complicated? Just target nuclear power and reprocessing plants.
- hollerith 5y ago
  Has any nation built a salted nuke?

pvg 5y ago

Universal conscription, 'total war' efforts, etc, have crossed class divides for the better part of a couple of centuries and are still in wide use so that theory doesn't seem to have quite the explanatory power you're suggesting.

thesuperbigfrog 5y ago

>> the prospect of survival contingent not on your wealth as in a traditional war, but on your interpersonal and improvisational survival skill was certainly looked upon with scorn. Why wouldn't wealth come into play? The wealthy have more resources to prepare for any kind of contingency to include nuclear war: https://www.cnet.com/features/inside-the-survival-condo-nuclear-bunker-protecting-the-ultrarich-hacking-the-apocalypse/ https://www.cnet.com/features/inside-the-survival-condo-nucl... Granted, the reaction time needed to get into a protective bunker is greatly reduced in a thermonuclear first strike, but the poor don't even have a survival bunker to escape to.

WalterBright 5y ago
It would be dependent on the reasons one is wealthy. I.e. if one is good at leading and organizing others, that is a great survival skill.

phreeza 5y ago

If you are unprepared and don't make use of your resources before war comes to your doorstep, conventional war also bridges class divides just fine.

Spooky23 5y ago

Sounds like an answer seeking a question. Given that assassination of leadership has been an increasingly common tactic since WW2, I don’t think the argument holds much weight.

WalterBright 5y ago
Snipers in the Civil War were a major factor, as their primary targets were officers. Militaries have long understood the value of decapitation of the enemy's leadership. The French conquered England in the battle of Hastings when they managed to kill the king. There were so many assassination attempts against Hitler that he spent the last couple years of the war in a bunker, and the war ended the day he died.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  True. But in Vietnam, Afghanistan (both Soviet and US conflict), and other environments, targeted assassination of civilian targets became a much bigger thing.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]