3 ms·

this thread is full of hypotheticals and blaming irrational actors for fear of nukes. the only country to drop nukes on enemies is the US. our fear of enemies

this thread is full of hypotheticals and blaming irrational actors for fear of nukes. the only country to drop nukes on enemies is the US. our fear of enemies using nukes has set us back half a century in energy. why do we focus on hypotheticals when there’s no evidence for 80 years?

function_seven 5y ago
> this thread is full of hypotheticals and blaming irrational actors for fear of nukes. I think it's a by-definition thing at this point, that if a nuclear war occurs it will be due to irrational actors. The only rational thing to do with nukes is not use them. > the only country to drop nukes on enemies is the US True, the first time they were used in warfare was by the US in 1945. There's no reason to think that's the end of the list. > our fear of enemies using nukes has set us back half a century in energy. I don't understand this. What nuclear power plants have not been built, due to fears of thermonuclear weapons? I'm sure there are a few instances (i.e. Iran), but the vast majority of sluggish nuclear power plant building is due to local opposition for reasons both misguided and not. > why do we focus on hypotheticals when there’s no evidence for 80 years? Well, because there's been nothing to sample in the extremely short time-span of 80 years! 80 years isn't even a century. It's minuscule in terms of human history. We've gone longer than that between major pandemics, volcanic eruptions that cause a never-ending winter. Solar flares that destroy all electrical grids, etc. Existential events don't happen every day ya know :)
- shane_b 5y ago
  > I think it's a by-definition thing at this point, that if a nuclear war occurs it will be due to irrational actors. The only rational thing to do with nukes is not use them. > There's no reason to think that's the end of the list. i agree with both. my point is rational/irrational actor has nothing to do with it. i think retaliation would be irrational but many would make a case otherwise. a case could be made for initiating conflict as well if weighing against hypothetical lives saved. that's frequently how ww2 usage is justified. > What nuclear power plants have not been built, due to fears of thermonuclear weapons? fair point. while i agree there is a distinction between weapons and energy, i think the branding applies to both. also, if we didn't fear nukes in the wrong hands, every country would have the tech for energy. wikipedia says 32 countries have nuclear power plants. i understand our fear, but i'd say it's also why nuclear power isn't ubiquitous. > Well, because there's been nothing to sample in the extremely short time-span of 80 years! absolutely. very short time. there were ample opportunities to use nukes in warfare even in that short time. my comments were focusing on the fact we use hypotheticals of irrational actors when the only evidence we have is counter. there's no telling what happens going forward.
panax 5y ago
While the spectre of nuclear conflict should not hold us back from use of nuclear power generation, there is plenty of real evidence here that we have been extremely lucky so far. There have been many times where we have come very close to global nuclear war and it had been adverted by chance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls Also take a look at past 'broken arrow' events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid... One day we are going to roll a critical failure.
- shane_b 5y ago
  these are interesting, thanks for sharing i'm in favor of getting rid of weapons. if nuclear power is ubiquitous, i don't know how that would be possible though.

function_seven 5y ago

> this thread is full of hypotheticals and blaming irrational actors for fear of nukes. I think it's a by-definition thing at this point, that if a nuclear war occurs it will be due to irrational actors. The only rational thing to do with nukes is not use them. > the only country to drop nukes on enemies is the US True, the first time they were used in warfare was by the US in 1945. There's no reason to think that's the end of the list. > our fear of enemies using nukes has set us back half a century in energy. I don't understand this. What nuclear power plants have not been built, due to fears of thermonuclear weapons? I'm sure there are a few instances (i.e. Iran), but the vast majority of sluggish nuclear power plant building is due to local opposition for reasons both misguided and not. > why do we focus on hypotheticals when there’s no evidence for 80 years? Well, because there's been nothing to sample in the extremely short time-span of 80 years! 80 years isn't even a century. It's minuscule in terms of human history. We've gone longer than that between major pandemics, volcanic eruptions that cause a never-ending winter. Solar flares that destroy all electrical grids, etc. Existential events don't happen every day ya know :)

shane_b 5y ago
> I think it's a by-definition thing at this point, that if a nuclear war occurs it will be due to irrational actors. The only rational thing to do with nukes is not use them. > There's no reason to think that's the end of the list. i agree with both. my point is rational/irrational actor has nothing to do with it. i think retaliation would be irrational but many would make a case otherwise. a case could be made for initiating conflict as well if weighing against hypothetical lives saved. that's frequently how ww2 usage is justified. > What nuclear power plants have not been built, due to fears of thermonuclear weapons? fair point. while i agree there is a distinction between weapons and energy, i think the branding applies to both. also, if we didn't fear nukes in the wrong hands, every country would have the tech for energy. wikipedia says 32 countries have nuclear power plants. i understand our fear, but i'd say it's also why nuclear power isn't ubiquitous. > Well, because there's been nothing to sample in the extremely short time-span of 80 years! absolutely. very short time. there were ample opportunities to use nukes in warfare even in that short time. my comments were focusing on the fact we use hypotheticals of irrational actors when the only evidence we have is counter. there's no telling what happens going forward.

panax 5y ago

While the spectre of nuclear conflict should not hold us back from use of nuclear power generation, there is plenty of real evidence here that we have been extremely lucky so far. There have been many times where we have come very close to global nuclear war and it had been adverted by chance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls Also take a look at past 'broken arrow' events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid... One day we are going to roll a critical failure.

shane_b 5y ago
these are interesting, thanks for sharing i'm in favor of getting rid of weapons. if nuclear power is ubiquitous, i don't know how that would be possible though.