7 ms·

Russia has a bit more than a couple of nukes, as does the US. I believe I've seen the numbers indicate that the present arsenals that are currently in service a

Russia has a bit more than a couple of nukes, as does the US. I believe I've seen the numbers indicate that the present arsenals that are currently in service are too small to erase humanity, but they are definitely big enough to cause hundreds of millions to a few billions of deaths. If we consider the situation of just 1-2 warheads are used in a conflict, I think it really hard to gauge the effect on public perception, and I suppose it also depends on the circumstances. If for instance, they were used in an unprovoked terrorist attack, killing 2-4million in a city, the response could be like after 9/11, but x100. If they were used to stop a military aggressor, killing "only" 10k soldiers in the field, their may lose their mythical status, and this could be the opening of Pandora's box, increasing the probability that they are used in later conflicts.

kodah 5y ago
Personally, I think we are well past the point of nuclear armaments. I think, if there is war, it'll be a ground and air war that's like a sophisticated yet familiar chess game and a side war that is mostly anti-war propaganda, pro-Russia propaganda, misinformation, and attacks on IOT and public infrastructure that exhaust the citizenry out of watching the fighting.
- DubiousPusher 5y ago
  Many people believed this kind of thing in July of 1914.
  - bb88 5y ago
    Exactly. When it comes to unloading your nuclear arsenal, it's not the war that's the problem -- it's the escalation.
- csee 5y ago
  Then when Putin starts losing and faces a coup from disgruntled people at home? You sure that megalomaniac won't decide to go nuclear when pushed into a corner?
  - asdff 5y ago
    One would hope that if the people in the streets are protesting then higher ups in the russian state would also be unlikely to go down with Putin. Just like Hitler's most trusted generals readily surrendering to advancing allies to ensure favorable terms for their soldiers.
    - Johnny555 5y ago
      That's when the generals start talking about a "limited nuclear war", and talk about survivability. The leaders don't need to be convinced that there will be small numbers of casualties, just that their country can survive or even come out stronger than their adversaries And I'm sure there are lots of simulations that show a survivable outcome, even if it turns out to not be true in reality. Even in the USA, there's been talk of developing small tactical nuclear weapons for use in a limited nuclear war. https://rollcall.com/2017/02/02/pentagon-panel-urges-trump-team-to-expand-nuclear-options/ https://rollcall.com/2017/02/02/pentagon-panel-urges-trump-t... But the problem, of course, is once that nuclear snowball starts rolling, it's hard to stop it, and there's no predicting how big it'll get because leaders don't always act as they do in simulations.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
Andrex 5y ago
9/11 x100?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZcZ6eJoxeE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZcZ6eJoxeE Sorry, thread needed some levity.
- HorizonXP 5y ago
  Levity appreciated. It's needed even more during these times.
- pkdpic 5y ago
  But does 9/11 times 100 equal 91,100 or 81.818181...?
  - wholinator2 5y ago
    Yeah, I did the math and it doesn't even equal 91,000/100, which is what it sounded like to me.
baybal2 5y ago
The cold war high side estimate was 50M if the West lets USSR to expend the whole of its arsenal on USA standing, doing nothing. Recent figures I read were 20M-40M for worst case scenarios. Realistically, a coordinated all in launch is ~1000 warheads, with 400 of them megaton scale in R36 MIRVs from West Siberia. First strike is only possible with computerised launch infrastructure operational. Beheading the command structure is a way to prevent an effective first strike. Without it, assorted launches get detected early, giving time for counterattack. The missile defence can much more easily shoot down 20 boosting missiles coming one by one, than 10 missiles coming simultaneously.
- trashtester 5y ago
  My numbers included the arsenals of all countries, and casualties for all reasons, including the direct blast, fallout, breakdown of infrastructure, the possibility of a nuclear winter, reduced food production, etc. Even people in areas with no nukes, little fallout and not affected by nuclear winter could face mass starvation due to lack of fertilizers, diesel, spare parts for machines, etc. Even in North America, Europe and North Asia, having the electric grids knocked out, central administrations crippled, much industry and agricultural infrastructure knocked out, followed by nuclear winter might see more people die from cold and starvation than from the nukes themselves. Anyway, I don't think we really want to test this, even if the total numbers do not fully add up to complete destruction.
  - queuebert 5y ago
    Exactly. I bet most of us on HN live in large cities and will be killed in the first strike.
    - eru 5y ago
      I live in a large city, but have reasonable hope not to be targeted in a first strike by either side. (I live in Singapore.)
- btilly 5y ago
  According to Congressional testimony from a committee they created to study the problem, a SINGLE nuclear bomb set off to maximize the EMP effect would likely kill about 2/3 of the population of the Continental USA, with possible higher estimates up to 90%. Mostly through slow painful deaths like mass starvation. Why? Because it would knock out most of our cars, electronics, payment systems, farm machinery, and everything else that we depend on to keep the supply chains our grocery stores depend on for food distribution. See https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/millions-americans-could-die-are-we-ready-emp-attack-89926?page=0%2C1 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/millions-americans-co... for verification. I have no idea where your "worst case scenarios" come from. But they don't exactly seem "worst case" to me!
kidme5 5y ago
One "solution" is to intercept the nuclear missiles from space. (Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative). It was restarted a couple years ago with commercial involvement. Possibly a Starlink derivative. Putin must be aware. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities
- bb88 5y ago
  I don't think that's viable for a couple of reasons unless the tech has changed significantly. One of the traditional decoys of an ICBM are basically launching a bunch of decoy mylar balloons with the warhead in one as well. The last round of interceptors couldn't figure out which of the balloons was the actual warhead. Then the government made the results secret. Worse now is the hypersonic weapons which won't have constant or "ballistic" trajectory. They may be slower in space, but they have maneuverability -- which will allow them to avoid being targeted by the systems the US has.
  - kidme5 5y ago
    Actually interception happens at the boost phase (upon launch) with these systems, so decoys are not possible unless you literally launch multiple rockets.
    - bb88 5y ago
      You mean the new systems? THAAD is re-entry or terminal phase. And decoys still exist in the midcourse phase. Wikipedia's definitions are what I understand about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense#Mid-course_phase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense#Mid-course_pha... With boost phase you have around 180 seconds to see it and to react to it.
      - kidme5 5y ago
        No, space-based.. Like Brilliant Pebbles. It's why Space Force is a big deal.

kodah 5y ago

Personally, I think we are well past the point of nuclear armaments. I think, if there is war, it'll be a ground and air war that's like a sophisticated yet familiar chess game and a side war that is mostly anti-war propaganda, pro-Russia propaganda, misinformation, and attacks on IOT and public infrastructure that exhaust the citizenry out of watching the fighting.

DubiousPusher 5y ago
Many people believed this kind of thing in July of 1914.
- bb88 5y ago
  Exactly. When it comes to unloading your nuclear arsenal, it's not the war that's the problem -- it's the escalation.
csee 5y ago
Then when Putin starts losing and faces a coup from disgruntled people at home? You sure that megalomaniac won't decide to go nuclear when pushed into a corner?
- asdff 5y ago
  One would hope that if the people in the streets are protesting then higher ups in the russian state would also be unlikely to go down with Putin. Just like Hitler's most trusted generals readily surrendering to advancing allies to ensure favorable terms for their soldiers.
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    That's when the generals start talking about a "limited nuclear war", and talk about survivability. The leaders don't need to be convinced that there will be small numbers of casualties, just that their country can survive or even come out stronger than their adversaries And I'm sure there are lots of simulations that show a survivable outcome, even if it turns out to not be true in reality. Even in the USA, there's been talk of developing small tactical nuclear weapons for use in a limited nuclear war. https://rollcall.com/2017/02/02/pentagon-panel-urges-trump-team-to-expand-nuclear-options/ https://rollcall.com/2017/02/02/pentagon-panel-urges-trump-t... But the problem, of course, is once that nuclear snowball starts rolling, it's hard to stop it, and there's no predicting how big it'll get because leaders don't always act as they do in simulations.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

Andrex 5y ago

9/11 x100?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZcZ6eJoxeE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZcZ6eJoxeE Sorry, thread needed some levity.

HorizonXP 5y ago
Levity appreciated. It's needed even more during these times.
pkdpic 5y ago
But does 9/11 times 100 equal 91,100 or 81.818181...?
- wholinator2 5y ago
  Yeah, I did the math and it doesn't even equal 91,000/100, which is what it sounded like to me.

baybal2 5y ago

The cold war high side estimate was 50M if the West lets USSR to expend the whole of its arsenal on USA standing, doing nothing. Recent figures I read were 20M-40M for worst case scenarios. Realistically, a coordinated all in launch is ~1000 warheads, with 400 of them megaton scale in R36 MIRVs from West Siberia. First strike is only possible with computerised launch infrastructure operational. Beheading the command structure is a way to prevent an effective first strike. Without it, assorted launches get detected early, giving time for counterattack. The missile defence can much more easily shoot down 20 boosting missiles coming one by one, than 10 missiles coming simultaneously.

trashtester 5y ago
My numbers included the arsenals of all countries, and casualties for all reasons, including the direct blast, fallout, breakdown of infrastructure, the possibility of a nuclear winter, reduced food production, etc. Even people in areas with no nukes, little fallout and not affected by nuclear winter could face mass starvation due to lack of fertilizers, diesel, spare parts for machines, etc. Even in North America, Europe and North Asia, having the electric grids knocked out, central administrations crippled, much industry and agricultural infrastructure knocked out, followed by nuclear winter might see more people die from cold and starvation than from the nukes themselves. Anyway, I don't think we really want to test this, even if the total numbers do not fully add up to complete destruction.
- queuebert 5y ago
  Exactly. I bet most of us on HN live in large cities and will be killed in the first strike.
  - eru 5y ago
    I live in a large city, but have reasonable hope not to be targeted in a first strike by either side. (I live in Singapore.)
btilly 5y ago
According to Congressional testimony from a committee they created to study the problem, a SINGLE nuclear bomb set off to maximize the EMP effect would likely kill about 2/3 of the population of the Continental USA, with possible higher estimates up to 90%. Mostly through slow painful deaths like mass starvation. Why? Because it would knock out most of our cars, electronics, payment systems, farm machinery, and everything else that we depend on to keep the supply chains our grocery stores depend on for food distribution. See https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/millions-americans-could-die-are-we-ready-emp-attack-89926?page=0%2C1 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/millions-americans-co... for verification. I have no idea where your "worst case scenarios" come from. But they don't exactly seem "worst case" to me!

kidme5 5y ago

One "solution" is to intercept the nuclear missiles from space. (Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative). It was restarted a couple years ago with commercial involvement. Possibly a Starlink derivative. Putin must be aware. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities

bb88 5y ago
I don't think that's viable for a couple of reasons unless the tech has changed significantly. One of the traditional decoys of an ICBM are basically launching a bunch of decoy mylar balloons with the warhead in one as well. The last round of interceptors couldn't figure out which of the balloons was the actual warhead. Then the government made the results secret. Worse now is the hypersonic weapons which won't have constant or "ballistic" trajectory. They may be slower in space, but they have maneuverability -- which will allow them to avoid being targeted by the systems the US has.
- kidme5 5y ago
  Actually interception happens at the boost phase (upon launch) with these systems, so decoys are not possible unless you literally launch multiple rockets.
  - bb88 5y ago
    You mean the new systems? THAAD is re-entry or terminal phase. And decoys still exist in the midcourse phase. Wikipedia's definitions are what I understand about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense#Mid-course_phase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense#Mid-course_pha... With boost phase you have around 180 seconds to see it and to react to it.
    - kidme5 5y ago
      No, space-based.. Like Brilliant Pebbles. It's why Space Force is a big deal.