5 ms·

I have seen recently several discussions in the HN/Substack blog milleau about nuclear war “not being that bad.” Hitting the delete button on nearly every major

I have seen recently several discussions in the HN/Substack blog milleau about nuclear war “not being that bad.” Hitting the delete button on nearly every major city in Russia, the United States and and Europe is pretty bad. For the flee to New Zealand crowd; I am quite curious what will happen when everyone with access to a long range airliner or business jet heads in that direction… Related, NZ could do with some serious thinking about its inability to enforce airspace sovereignty.

mlindner 5y ago
I like this nice video from Kurzgesagt on the horrors of nuclear weapons on cities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPH-br_eJQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPH-br_eJQ
- MrFoof 5y ago
  The biggest takeaway people should have from this video is that a modern nuclear strike is effectively an overwhelming Denial of Service attack against emergency services, infrastructure, and supply chain... all at once, on an immense scale. Enough so that quickly scaling a "proper response" just isn't possible. Even if just a single large city (500K+ pop) was hit with a single, typical modern warhead (200-300kt), the results would be covered in history books for the rest of the millennium. A large scale exchange? The best you could hope for is that you're living in the Southern hemisphere to avoid the immediate horror, though the next 20 years would still be horrific.
formerkrogemp 5y ago
I'd imagine the world economy would collapse, and china would expand aggressively.
chrisseaton 5y ago
Why does everyone think New Zealand is safe? It's a commonwealth country and has huge defence connections to the US and UK.
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  Mainly because it's located so far from everything that it'll probably avoid being a casualty...
- DeWilde 5y ago
  I think the south of Argentine is probably a better spot to duke it out during a full-scale nuclear war.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    'duke it out' means to go and fight someone - seems like you wanted to say the opposite?
    - DeWilde 5y ago
      Yes, I was aiming for hunker down. Thanks.
- excalibur 5y ago
  Everyone knows that NZ us a haven for rich westerners with luxurious bunkers, which may be enough to make it a target. For the crowd simply hoping for some variation of On the Beach, you should be aware that a nuclear war in the 2020s would almost certainly see Australia targeted by Chinese nukes.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    > rich westerners with luxurious bunkers, which may be enough to make it a target. In an apocalypse scenario, they are just extra mouths to feed - I wouldn't waste any missiles to target rich people's mansions in any country, but the locals might have plans for them...
    - lamontcg 5y ago
      Well you see, they'll pay the locals handsomely in bitcoin...
DeWilde 5y ago
> I have seen recently several discussions in the HN/Substack blog milleau about nuclear war “not being that bad.” I think that was a fear of death cope. Downplaying such events reduces the temporary anxiety of thinking about living in a world where nukes have been unleashed. It's hard to overstate how annihilating these weapons are to the areas that are struck by them, and how decimating they are even to the population areas not directly struck but heavily dependent on the major population centers.
tigerlily 5y ago
NZ is quite far away, though eventually the radionuclides would get us. It wouldn’t surprise me if we took a direct hit. Fwiw I’d be more disappointed by a belligerent navy coming to show up our strategic shortcomings.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
wmf 5y ago
Under the doctrine of counterforce targeting, major cities wouldn't be attacked so optimistic scenarios estimate "only" 20M dead in a US-Russia exchange. Of course that's just one possible doctrine that Russia could follow. The real issue is not any one number but the probabilities of different scenarios.
RustyConsul 5y ago
There was a virus and i couldn't find toilet paper. You think you'd be able to find any basics after a nuke goes off? Hope ya have a farm. GL trying to get through an airport, GL trying to drive anywhere. We thought we were standing on the shoulders of giants, turns out we where standing on cards.
- robonerd 5y ago
  Merely live in spitting distance of some strategic targets, then you don't have to worry about suffering for long. Thanks to Naval Base Kitsap, I don't think I'll have to worry about the basics if a nuclear war breaks out.
  - buildbot 5y ago
    Yup, something like 1/3rd the entire US arsenal is there. Also, it’s kinda wild/fun to look at the vastness of the bunkers they have by the submarine pens; there are multiple rail lines going North/south that all link up to the pens.
  - aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
    And when you're not struck...? Seems like such a goofy attitude/plan, so many failure modes.
    - robonerd 5y ago
      GMD only has 44 interceptors. I'm pretty sure I'd be hit. >goofy attitude Just a little gallows humor. As for planning, I have enough canned food and bottled water in my closet to last about a week. But that's more a plan for lockdowns/etc than for a nuclear war. As long as I live here, I earnestly don't think there is much sense in planning for that.
    - drooogs 5y ago
      I think it's more dark humor / coping with death than a plan. if that were someone's serious plan, they would probably consider killing themselves if the bomb didn't do it for them.
the_only_law 5y ago
> I have seen recently several discussions in the HN/Substack blog milleau about nuclear war “not being that bad.” I started noticing this sentiment on Reddit sometime last year. Usually with some jingoistic fantasy about whatever country the news media told them to hate.
Barrin92 5y ago
It's a psychological coping thing. A lot of people, in particular younger ones born after the cold war have never actually been in a situation where their own physical safety is threatened by brute violence or seen the world around them fall apart. See also "covid is just the flu, right guys?" phenomenon. Substack bloggers in particular with their Pollyanna-ish tendencies take these things badly.
drooogs 5y ago
I dunno what discussions you are referring to specifically, but the mainstream belief is that all-out nuclear war would end in nuclear winter. I have seen some posts/articles recently contesting that, which are (quietly) supported by the scientific community. we don't know for sure that nuclear winter wouldn't happen, but the foundations of the original theory have come into question under the last few decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_d... I don't really see a meaningful distinction between "end of the human race" and merely "end of civilization as we know it", but it's interesting to learn about the current debate among experts.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  That isn't an interesting debate to have or to watch. Particularly not when as big of a chunk of our population believes the rapture is coming in their lifetimes.
baybal2 5y ago

mlindner 5y ago

I like this nice video from Kurzgesagt on the horrors of nuclear weapons on cities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPH-br_eJQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPH-br_eJQ

MrFoof 5y ago
The biggest takeaway people should have from this video is that a modern nuclear strike is effectively an overwhelming Denial of Service attack against emergency services, infrastructure, and supply chain... all at once, on an immense scale. Enough so that quickly scaling a "proper response" just isn't possible. Even if just a single large city (500K+ pop) was hit with a single, typical modern warhead (200-300kt), the results would be covered in history books for the rest of the millennium. A large scale exchange? The best you could hope for is that you're living in the Southern hemisphere to avoid the immediate horror, though the next 20 years would still be horrific.

formerkrogemp 5y ago

I'd imagine the world economy would collapse, and china would expand aggressively.

chrisseaton 5y ago

Why does everyone think New Zealand is safe? It's a commonwealth country and has huge defence connections to the US and UK.

Mikeb85 5y ago
Mainly because it's located so far from everything that it'll probably avoid being a casualty...
DeWilde 5y ago
I think the south of Argentine is probably a better spot to duke it out during a full-scale nuclear war.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  'duke it out' means to go and fight someone - seems like you wanted to say the opposite?
  - DeWilde 5y ago
    Yes, I was aiming for hunker down. Thanks.
excalibur 5y ago
Everyone knows that NZ us a haven for rich westerners with luxurious bunkers, which may be enough to make it a target. For the crowd simply hoping for some variation of On the Beach, you should be aware that a nuclear war in the 2020s would almost certainly see Australia targeted by Chinese nukes.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  > rich westerners with luxurious bunkers, which may be enough to make it a target. In an apocalypse scenario, they are just extra mouths to feed - I wouldn't waste any missiles to target rich people's mansions in any country, but the locals might have plans for them...
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    Well you see, they'll pay the locals handsomely in bitcoin...

DeWilde 5y ago

> I have seen recently several discussions in the HN/Substack blog milleau about nuclear war “not being that bad.” I think that was a fear of death cope. Downplaying such events reduces the temporary anxiety of thinking about living in a world where nukes have been unleashed. It's hard to overstate how annihilating these weapons are to the areas that are struck by them, and how decimating they are even to the population areas not directly struck but heavily dependent on the major population centers.

tigerlily 5y ago

NZ is quite far away, though eventually the radionuclides would get us. It wouldn’t surprise me if we took a direct hit. Fwiw I’d be more disappointed by a belligerent navy coming to show up our strategic shortcomings.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

wmf 5y ago

Under the doctrine of counterforce targeting, major cities wouldn't be attacked so optimistic scenarios estimate "only" 20M dead in a US-Russia exchange. Of course that's just one possible doctrine that Russia could follow. The real issue is not any one number but the probabilities of different scenarios.

RustyConsul 5y ago

There was a virus and i couldn't find toilet paper. You think you'd be able to find any basics after a nuke goes off? Hope ya have a farm. GL trying to get through an airport, GL trying to drive anywhere. We thought we were standing on the shoulders of giants, turns out we where standing on cards.

robonerd 5y ago
Merely live in spitting distance of some strategic targets, then you don't have to worry about suffering for long. Thanks to Naval Base Kitsap, I don't think I'll have to worry about the basics if a nuclear war breaks out.
- buildbot 5y ago
  Yup, something like 1/3rd the entire US arsenal is there. Also, it’s kinda wild/fun to look at the vastness of the bunkers they have by the submarine pens; there are multiple rail lines going North/south that all link up to the pens.
- aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
  And when you're not struck...? Seems like such a goofy attitude/plan, so many failure modes.
  - robonerd 5y ago
    GMD only has 44 interceptors. I'm pretty sure I'd be hit. >goofy attitude Just a little gallows humor. As for planning, I have enough canned food and bottled water in my closet to last about a week. But that's more a plan for lockdowns/etc than for a nuclear war. As long as I live here, I earnestly don't think there is much sense in planning for that.
  - drooogs 5y ago
    I think it's more dark humor / coping with death than a plan. if that were someone's serious plan, they would probably consider killing themselves if the bomb didn't do it for them.

the_only_law 5y ago

> I have seen recently several discussions in the HN/Substack blog milleau about nuclear war “not being that bad.” I started noticing this sentiment on Reddit sometime last year. Usually with some jingoistic fantasy about whatever country the news media told them to hate.

Barrin92 5y ago

It's a psychological coping thing. A lot of people, in particular younger ones born after the cold war have never actually been in a situation where their own physical safety is threatened by brute violence or seen the world around them fall apart. See also "covid is just the flu, right guys?" phenomenon. Substack bloggers in particular with their Pollyanna-ish tendencies take these things badly.

drooogs 5y ago

I dunno what discussions you are referring to specifically, but the mainstream belief is that all-out nuclear war would end in nuclear winter. I have seen some posts/articles recently contesting that, which are (quietly) supported by the scientific community. we don't know for sure that nuclear winter wouldn't happen, but the foundations of the original theory have come into question under the last few decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_d... I don't really see a meaningful distinction between "end of the human race" and merely "end of civilization as we know it", but it's interesting to learn about the current debate among experts.

lamontcg 5y ago
That isn't an interesting debate to have or to watch. Particularly not when as big of a chunk of our population believes the rapture is coming in their lifetimes.

baybal2 5y ago