3 ms·

> 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 s

> 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
- arethuza 5y ago
  For the early 1960s according to Daniel Ellsberg: "The total death toll as calculated by the Joint Chiefs, from a U.S. first strike aimed primarily at the Soviet Union and China, would be roughly 600 million dead. A hundred Holocausts" 600 million was known at the time to be an underestimate and then add in what the Soviets would have done then over a billion is probably realistic. World population at the time was about 3 billion. Edit: Worth noting that this US strike would have killed about 100 million in Western Europe.
cortesoft 5y ago
The nuclear weapons we have now are WAY more powerful than the ones used on Japan, and only two were dropped. An all out modern nuclear war would be a lot more devastating.
- korethr 5y ago
  If you read the linked book, it covers this point. Yes, the tech exists to build bombs with multi-megaton yields and has existed for decades However, those super-big explosions are actually less tactically and strategically useful. More useful are smaller explosions that can be placed with more precision, and the tech needed to hit with precision has only improved over time. It is more likely that deployed weapons would have yields measured in kilotons. While bigger than Nagasaki, probably still closer to Nagasaki than Tsar Bomba
amanaplanacanal 5y ago
Yeah radioactive decay from fallout is exponential. The hottest isotopes decay rapidly. It might be 5 years in the worst locations, but not everywhere.
jmnicolas 5y ago
Japan took "only" 2 low yield bombs. We're speaking nuclear war here, with nukes flying left and right. > As long as only "normal" nuclear weapons are used a few weeks would probably be enough For the "lulz" read about cobalt nukes. I have read somewhere that Russia had some but I can't confirm it.

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
arethuza 5y ago
For the early 1960s according to Daniel Ellsberg: "The total death toll as calculated by the Joint Chiefs, from a U.S. first strike aimed primarily at the Soviet Union and China, would be roughly 600 million dead. A hundred Holocausts" 600 million was known at the time to be an underestimate and then add in what the Soviets would have done then over a billion is probably realistic. World population at the time was about 3 billion. Edit: Worth noting that this US strike would have killed about 100 million in Western Europe.

cortesoft 5y ago

The nuclear weapons we have now are WAY more powerful than the ones used on Japan, and only two were dropped. An all out modern nuclear war would be a lot more devastating.

korethr 5y ago
If you read the linked book, it covers this point. Yes, the tech exists to build bombs with multi-megaton yields and has existed for decades However, those super-big explosions are actually less tactically and strategically useful. More useful are smaller explosions that can be placed with more precision, and the tech needed to hit with precision has only improved over time. It is more likely that deployed weapons would have yields measured in kilotons. While bigger than Nagasaki, probably still closer to Nagasaki than Tsar Bomba

amanaplanacanal 5y ago

Yeah radioactive decay from fallout is exponential. The hottest isotopes decay rapidly. It might be 5 years in the worst locations, but not everywhere.

jmnicolas 5y ago

Japan took "only" 2 low yield bombs. We're speaking nuclear war here, with nukes flying left and right. > As long as only "normal" nuclear weapons are used a few weeks would probably be enough For the "lulz" read about cobalt nukes. I have read somewhere that Russia had some but I can't confirm it.