5 ms·

Just yesterday I was thinking: What if we piss off a nuclear power all around the world now? Wouldn't that be fortunate timing to solve global warming? FTFY. I

Just yesterday I was thinking: What if we piss off a nuclear power all around the world now? Wouldn't that be fortunate timing to solve global warming? FTFY. I mean sure we only have another 50 years before the planet is unlivable for us, but why desperately try to accelerate it? EDIT: here is Russias military doctrine from 2000 https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000-05/russias-military-doctrine https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000-05/russias-military-doc...

jakeinspace 5y ago
The planet will not be unlivable in 50 years. Larger areas of it will be, but most of the landmass will still be hospitable. There may be significant collapse of agricultural production, but again, that will affect the poorer countries mainly. I suppose some massive and unpredictable ecological collapse could conceivably happen by then, which would I guess have the potential of severely damaging food production, but I’m not sure if that’s considered especially likely.
- jorvi 5y ago
  I can’t find the source right now, but nuclear winter is projected to drop temperatures by 20 to 40°C . Not a single country in the world has the infrastructure or reserves to deal with that.
  - marcinzm 5y ago
    The OP was talking about climate change making the planet inhabitable and nuclear winter fixing that.
- mellavora 5y ago
  > that will affect the poorer countries mainly sending waves of migration into the richer countries. at some point we are all in this together. > some massive and unpredictable ecological collapse could conceivably happen by then, which would I guess have the potential of severely damaging food production, but I’m not sure if that’s considered especially likely. unlikely that we get an unpredictable ecological collapse. predictable ones, however, are already taking place. Insect populations down 80%, bird populations down 50%, general extinction rate at levels that make me cry, ... how long until this affects food production? Hell, at current rates of erosion, the US is predicted to run out of dirt by the end of the century.
  - jhoechtl 5y ago
    > sending waves of migration into the richer countries The richer countries still have the mass transportation in their hands. Its railroads, planes, ships and cars of richer countries which bring the migrants.
EGreg 5y ago
I see, clever way to combat global warming … but nuclear winter will only last for about 10-20 years. And the warming hasn’t progressed enough that countries bombing the shit out of all major cities will cancel it out. Wait until 2100 before trying that. PS: firebombing is more effective, more ash after all :-P
golergka 5y ago
> nuclear power Is it though? Russian conventional army has clearly been devastated by corruption and bad administration, as the generals and staff didn't anticipate that it would actually be used in a real all-out war. What makes you think that nuclear forces are in better shape?
- JohnBooty 5y ago
  There's a significant chance their nuclear weapons are in absolute shambles, but who wants to call that bluff? Additionally, even if their nuclear forces are in shambles, it really only takes a single launch to set off nuclear war. It's not like their entire nuclear force needs to function in order for the world to see a very bad outcome.
  - foogazi 5y ago
    > Additionally, even if their nuclear forces are in shambles, it really only takes a single launch to set off nuclear war. Not really - a single launch order has to be communicated and obeyed. No one single person can launch it. Then where is it launched to ? Uninhabited area, high altitude or a population center of a non-nuclear power? You think Russia is cancelled now - imagine after firing off a nuclear weapon - China’s existence would be at risk too Although we’d be so much closer to nuclear war there are still a few degree’s left.
    - JohnBooty 5y ago
      I agree. When I say "shambles" I don't mean "0% functional, can't even launch a missile." The system would have to be minimally functional to at least launch something. But at that point, even if the warhead is a dud or the rocket explodes immediately after launch, or goes off target, etc - the genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  Search Bulava / Topol tests 201x, RU test fires ICBMs successfully every year. Reporting of current RU incompetence doesn't suggest anything deficient with their rocketry functionality except not much missiles were used, and a few precision strikes on runways were consistently off course by several meters and missed the runway, indicating user error. Several meters doesn't matter with nukes.

jakeinspace 5y ago

The planet will not be unlivable in 50 years. Larger areas of it will be, but most of the landmass will still be hospitable. There may be significant collapse of agricultural production, but again, that will affect the poorer countries mainly. I suppose some massive and unpredictable ecological collapse could conceivably happen by then, which would I guess have the potential of severely damaging food production, but I’m not sure if that’s considered especially likely.

jorvi 5y ago
I can’t find the source right now, but nuclear winter is projected to drop temperatures by 20 to 40°C . Not a single country in the world has the infrastructure or reserves to deal with that.
- marcinzm 5y ago
  The OP was talking about climate change making the planet inhabitable and nuclear winter fixing that.
mellavora 5y ago
> that will affect the poorer countries mainly sending waves of migration into the richer countries. at some point we are all in this together. > some massive and unpredictable ecological collapse could conceivably happen by then, which would I guess have the potential of severely damaging food production, but I’m not sure if that’s considered especially likely. unlikely that we get an unpredictable ecological collapse. predictable ones, however, are already taking place. Insect populations down 80%, bird populations down 50%, general extinction rate at levels that make me cry, ... how long until this affects food production? Hell, at current rates of erosion, the US is predicted to run out of dirt by the end of the century.
- jhoechtl 5y ago
  > sending waves of migration into the richer countries The richer countries still have the mass transportation in their hands. Its railroads, planes, ships and cars of richer countries which bring the migrants.

EGreg 5y ago

I see, clever way to combat global warming … but nuclear winter will only last for about 10-20 years. And the warming hasn’t progressed enough that countries bombing the shit out of all major cities will cancel it out. Wait until 2100 before trying that. PS: firebombing is more effective, more ash after all :-P

golergka 5y ago

> nuclear power Is it though? Russian conventional army has clearly been devastated by corruption and bad administration, as the generals and staff didn't anticipate that it would actually be used in a real all-out war. What makes you think that nuclear forces are in better shape?

JohnBooty 5y ago
There's a significant chance their nuclear weapons are in absolute shambles, but who wants to call that bluff? Additionally, even if their nuclear forces are in shambles, it really only takes a single launch to set off nuclear war. It's not like their entire nuclear force needs to function in order for the world to see a very bad outcome.
- foogazi 5y ago
  > Additionally, even if their nuclear forces are in shambles, it really only takes a single launch to set off nuclear war. Not really - a single launch order has to be communicated and obeyed. No one single person can launch it. Then where is it launched to ? Uninhabited area, high altitude or a population center of a non-nuclear power? You think Russia is cancelled now - imagine after firing off a nuclear weapon - China’s existence would be at risk too Although we’d be so much closer to nuclear war there are still a few degree’s left.
  - JohnBooty 5y ago
    I agree. When I say "shambles" I don't mean "0% functional, can't even launch a missile." The system would have to be minimally functional to at least launch something. But at that point, even if the warhead is a dud or the rocket explodes immediately after launch, or goes off target, etc - the genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
dirtyid 5y ago
Search Bulava / Topol tests 201x, RU test fires ICBMs successfully every year. Reporting of current RU incompetence doesn't suggest anything deficient with their rocketry functionality except not much missiles were used, and a few precision strikes on runways were consistently off course by several meters and missed the runway, indicating user error. Several meters doesn't matter with nukes.