7 ms·

Surpass in destructive power doesn’t mean much since we can already destroy all life on the planet with nukes. That’s what makes the doomsday weapon in Dr. Stra

by stult 5y ago

Surpass in destructive power doesn’t mean much since we can already destroy all life on the planet with nukes. That’s what makes the doomsday weapon in Dr. Strangelove so ironic and funny. But if a new weapon type that at least approximates nukes in destructive power while also surpassing them in ease of proliferation, cost of production, or detectability? Those are much scarier propositions.

ben_w 5y ago
Nukes are several orders of magnitude away from destroying all life on this planet. https://youtu.be/JyECrGp-Sw8 https://youtu.be/JyECrGp-Sw8
- stult 5y ago
  It’s a distinction without a difference. For human purposes, nukes can effectively destroy us completely. We don’t need to also physically rip the planet apart and destroy all the single celled organisms to ruin the planet for ourselves.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    The nukes that actually exist today would reduce us to a medieval or early industrial existence, except with a lot of information about how to rebuild faster — Hiroshima and Nagasaki both got rebuilt and are now thriving, and while modern weapons are higher yield and much of the industry to rebuild with would be destroyed, not all of it would be, and roughly half the global population would still be alive to do it. I wouldn’t count that as “effectively destroy us completely”, even though it would be really bad.
    - NateEag 5y ago
      Keep in mind that all the easily-mined coal, oil, and gas deposits have been used. We might be kinda screwed if something takes out civilization (e.g., the nukes fly). I guess we can hope that nuclear winter is exaggerated or non-existent and the southern hemisphere pulls through with intact infrastructure after the exchange.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        Sure, everything would suck for a while[0]. But we had wind and hydro for a long time before electricity and steam, so those that survive could rebuild, analogously as to how we are presently weaning ourselves off fossil fuels without such destruction. [0] I realise given the context of global thermonuclear war this may seem like understatement. Well, I’m British and I have a stereotype to uphold.
        NateEag 5y ago
        It might not be as easy as you'd hope to rebuild. This essay does a good job of explaining why it's probably possible in principle and why in practice it might be quite difficult: https://aeon.co/essays/could-we-reboot-a-modern-civilisation-without-fossil-fuels https://aeon.co/essays/could-we-reboot-a-modern-civilisation... (Incidentally, I highly recommend that author's book _ The Knowledge_, which is a more extended meditation on industrial civilisation and what it would take to reinvent it if we lost it.)

by stult 5y ago

ben_w 5y ago

Nukes are several orders of magnitude away from destroying all life on this planet. https://youtu.be/JyECrGp-Sw8 https://youtu.be/JyECrGp-Sw8

stult 5y ago
It’s a distinction without a difference. For human purposes, nukes can effectively destroy us completely. We don’t need to also physically rip the planet apart and destroy all the single celled organisms to ruin the planet for ourselves.
- ben_w 5y ago
  The nukes that actually exist today would reduce us to a medieval or early industrial existence, except with a lot of information about how to rebuild faster — Hiroshima and Nagasaki both got rebuilt and are now thriving, and while modern weapons are higher yield and much of the industry to rebuild with would be destroyed, not all of it would be, and roughly half the global population would still be alive to do it. I wouldn’t count that as “effectively destroy us completely”, even though it would be really bad.
  - NateEag 5y ago
    Keep in mind that all the easily-mined coal, oil, and gas deposits have been used. We might be kinda screwed if something takes out civilization (e.g., the nukes fly). I guess we can hope that nuclear winter is exaggerated or non-existent and the southern hemisphere pulls through with intact infrastructure after the exchange.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Sure, everything would suck for a while[0]. But we had wind and hydro for a long time before electricity and steam, so those that survive could rebuild, analogously as to how we are presently weaning ourselves off fossil fuels without such destruction. [0] I realise given the context of global thermonuclear war this may seem like understatement. Well, I’m British and I have a stereotype to uphold.
      - NateEag 5y ago
        It might not be as easy as you'd hope to rebuild. This essay does a good job of explaining why it's probably possible in principle and why in practice it might be quite difficult: https://aeon.co/essays/could-we-reboot-a-modern-civilisation-without-fossil-fuels https://aeon.co/essays/could-we-reboot-a-modern-civilisation... (Incidentally, I highly recommend that author's book _ The Knowledge_, which is a more extended meditation on industrial civilisation and what it would take to reinvent it if we lost it.)