19 ms·
Princeton lab simulates nuclear war (2019)
- RRRA 4y agoJoyful weekend everyone
- 6stringmerc 4y agoOn the bright side now the Boomers can shut up about how tenuous their early years were with the threat of nuclear war. Same Boomers in charge now same stupid ego problems.
- luckylion 4y ago"This is nothing. When I was in school, we had to swim 40 miles through a radioactive swamp, wrestling mutated alligators."
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- grecy 4y agouphill both ways
- kcplate 4y agoYou jest, but I owned a house less than a half mile from a river where there was an acid spill in 1997 from a phosphate plant. River was caustic enough to impact the gators in it. Didn’t spend much time walking through it or wrestling the gators. Although I was chased by an angry turtle once.
- luckylion 4y agoHow were they impacted? Anything unexpected or did you just find a lot more dead gators?
- kcplate 4y agoAs I recall there was some with scarring from the initial spill, but don’t recall reports of dead gators—they tend to be pretty resilient. Fish were killed off, though. Basically the gators left the affected area for a few years. Probably because the food chain impact.
- residualmind 4y agofrom a gen-xer: yawn it's so incredibly naive, shortsighted, hypocritical and foremost childish to blame everything that's gone wrong on everybody before (except?) you. because you'll do better, sure, lol. people are people, people are alike all over, and in all times. that's what needs to be realized in order to begin trying to do better; realize that you're the same. i think nobody but the generations who actually experienced one or two world wars could have done better to maintain peace during the last 70 years. now it's time to see if the ones who came after them still have it in them, only knowing hardship from their parents' experiences. but i see very little hope for the ones after those.
- Aeolun 4y agoI don’t think I’d do better, but that goes two ways. The generation before me blames the generation before them. Thinking that I’d be any different is a bit arrogant (if a nice dream).
- blueatlas 4y agoI'm a late boomer (1961). I don't blame the generation before me. I've known lots of them. My values, who I am, and what I do, stands entirely on their shoulders.
- Aeolun 4y agoI think you are kind of past the age where you would blame the past generation. It’s something you mainly do at ages <30. When you get older your thinking becomes a bit more nuanced.
- pixl97 4y agoIts easy to blame the programmer before you for your applications shortfallings, it's much more difficult to program yourself out of the hole.
- BirAdam 4y agoLumping all of the boomer gen into one group isn’t bright. If I look at Xers and millennials, they have distinct subgroupings that vary from hyper responsible to nihilistic. The boomers were the same, they’re just getting old. It should also now be fairly apparent that voting doesn’t seem to change that much in Western “democracies” regarding this particular topic. No matter who gets in, the bankers and the military contractors seem to make billions. When the boomers did rebel (and they did in a very major way), some of them were shot and killed, others were beaten by cops in the street, and still more of them were hit with fire houses at close range. The late 60s were hell. Yes, there are tons of boomers who suck, but my own generation is pretty shitty too (older edge of millennial).
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tamaharbor 4y agoAnd the civil unrest would suck also.
- kuroguro 4y agoNot sure how I'd survive if the option to press a button and have food appear at my doorstep vanished.
- pixl97 4y agoIn countries like the US where a sizeable part of the population depends on advanced medical care for survival the initial deaths are but a start. I would expect the DOW and Dupont facilities that produce the precursors to keep us alive would be ashes in the first few minutes.
- hotdamnson 4y agoNorth east of Spain and south west of France properties prices will skyrocket now.
- spockz 4y agoThat sounds like the Pyrenees? What else is in between north east of Spain and south west of France?
- amelius 4y agoSo, Russia will adjust their weapons to target that area, since that's where all the important people will be. That's the problem with predictions: they affect the outcome.
- phtrivier 4y agoExcept when you realize that the Toulouse region is actually a bit significant in terms of aviation / space R&D, so we're probably not very far on the target list for France. Which at least, makes "dying very quickly and hopefully without too much pain" a plausible exit scenario in case of nuclear war :shrug:
- rougka 4y agoThe simulation reminds of https://store.steampowered.com/app/1520/DEFCON/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/1520/DEFCON/ just with much weaker graphics
- waffleiron 4y agoThere is this game as well, which is DEFCON’s spiritual successor https://store.steampowered.com/app/1178220/ICBM/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/1178220/ICBM/
- Stevvo 4y agoThe music seems to take direct inspiration. I guess the art in both is inspired by the massive radar screens from 80s/90s movies, which are in turn inspired by the graphics used by the US government's screens.
- Cockbrand 4y agoHere's the obligatory contextual mention of the excellent UK film "Threads": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film)
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago"The day after" was released a year before "Threads" and it literally shocked a generation. Including my parents, in Italy, where it aired on February 1984. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After
- pmoriarty 4y agoI'd rate "The Day After" a 5 out of 10 on the horror scale, while "Threads" is a 10.
- peoplefromibiza 4y agoI agree. Threads is more realistic, but The day after literally ignited panic in millions of families (I remember watching it on Television when I was 6, almost any other neighbour household was watching the same thing!) I would also add the more prosaic Wargames, also from 1983, to the list of movies talking about a "Global Thermonuclear War" and, similarly to what Princeton is doing, simulating "A strange game" where "the only winning move is not to play"
- pmoriarty 4y ago"The day after literally ignited panic in millions of families" Yeah, because they hadn't seen Threads, and because The Day After is about the effect of nuclear war on the US, which obviously hits closer to home. If they'd seen Threads their reaction to The Day After would have probably been much milder.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
- yellow_lead 4y ago(2019)?
- Bayart 4y agoIt doesn't seem to take into account British and French nuclear arsenals (although they're not commensurable to US and Russian ones). Strikes on UK and French territory (which are shown in this simulation), not even mentioning NATO commitments, would incite a response.
- alexvoda 4y agoAlso look at the other nuclear powers just sitting there dooing nothing. This in a early cold war era US vs USSR Armageddon scenario, not a 202x scenario. Plausible scenarios today are: - Russia using a nuke in Ukraine and earning the hate of every single country in the world. China and India try to remain neutral but they would almost certainly drop support for Russia if they break the nuclear taboo. This would not even require a nuclear response to solve. - Kim doing something stupid.
- philjohn 4y agoOr tensions rising between India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers.
- jfoster 4y agoHas there even been a direct conventional war between two nuclear powers before? I expect that nuclear weapons are a deterrent of any war when both sides have them. The problem with disarmament seems to be that imbalances arise, and the problem with armament seems to be that if hundreds of countries have them, there's a high probability of one of them doing something stupid/crazy/suicidal.
- messe 4y agoYes, the Sino-Soviet border conflict of 1969 and the Kargil war between India and Pakistan in 1999.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
- RivieraKid 4y agoPhew, my country seems mostly intact. If you're sufficiently far from a major city or a base, you should be fairly safe. Although getting food could be a problem in the long-term if nuclear winter sets in, which seems uncertain based on what I've read.
- admissionsguy 4y ago> Although getting food could be a problem in the long-term if nuclear winter sets in, which seems uncertain based on what I've read. I would worry more about the severance of supply chains if your country/region imports much of its food.
- RivieraKid 4y agoThis is an easy problem compared to a nuclear winter. But this depends on the country of course.
- pmoriarty 4y ago"If you're sufficiently far from a major city or a base, you should be fairly safe." You have to be far from missile launch sites too, which tend to be scattered over many remote areas. Hydroelectric dams, power stations are also likely to get hit, so say goodbye to electricity. Say goodbye to modern medicine too, as pharmaceutical plants will not function without power, working supply chains and a skilled population to staff them. So anyone who depends on modern medicine (like blood pressure medication, dialysis, etc) to survive is going to be dead. Antibiotics will quickly run out, and so even minor infections that are treatable today will become life-threatening. Hospitals will be completely overwhelmed (if they survive at all), so say goodbye to hospital care for any serious conditions. Childbirth will go back to the stone age, and child mortality will skyrocket. You'd also have to survive the fallout... water's going to be unsafe to drink pretty much anywhere as it'll be contaminated and water treatment plants are unlikely to survive either. The fields will be contaminated with fallout, all the animals are likely to die. You'll likely die of starvation or thirst unless you're a survivalist who happens to be in their bunker when the nukes hit (because there's unlikely to be any warning)... even then, how long is their food and water going to last? The handful of survivors unlucky enough to live through a nuclear war will emerge on to a world devastated on a scale that's beyond imagining. Most of them would probably rather be dead, and the suicide rate among survivors will likely be high.
- admissionsguy 4y agoHow many detonations are groundbursts and how many are airbursts? The latter produce a very limited fallout, so it's a key question for anyone living away from the targets of direct strikes.
- marcinzm 4y agoLooking at that the big winner would be China as the largest remaining economic power with intact infrastructure.
- Aeolun 4y agoAnd we’d all be happy for it. If there is at least one major economy remaining then humanity may sort of survive what comes next.
- gus_massa 4y agoIn the movie WarGames [spoiler alert] in the simulation after the first strike everyone nukes everyone, to ensure the other remaining economies don't become superpowers. I'm not sure if that's realistic or only a tool for the plot.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 6stringmerc 4y agoWait, nobody else thinks that if Russia uses a tactical nuclear weapon that North Korea won’t see a window of opportunity to fire one or more over at Japan or South Korea? I mean technically that war is only at cease fire.
- WJW 4y agoWhat would be the benefit to NK leadership to do so? The war may be "only" at cease fire right now, but chances are that SK and Japan (not to mention the US) would consider the use of nukes sufficient reason to storm Pyongyang and decapitate the leadership structure before they get nuked again. Kim Jong Un knows that he will die if he actually uses nukes, so chances are he won't.
- Aeolun 4y agoThe threat of using nukes is much more valuable than the actuality of using them, which would be immediate self-destruction. It’s just an extremely convenient dead man’s switch (if you hurt/kill me, it’ll be millions paying the price).
- postalrat 4y agoUSA might be so busy with the war in Europe, the middle east, India vs Pakistan, China invading Taiwan, etc that is doesn't have a lot of resources to help defend South Korea. That's why it could be considered an opportunity for North Korea.
- WJW 4y agoThe USA would have to be very very busy indeed to overlook the nuking of close allies. Also, South Korea itself is absolutely armed to the teeth and it is entirely unclear to me that North Korea stands any chance of winning a war even if they do get a nuclear first strike off.
- rhino369 4y agoWhy wouldn’t the USA retaliate with its own nuclear strike on North Korea? They would have to. North Korea wants nukes to avoid getting regime changed like Iraq. Not to start an offensive nuclear war that they’d lose.
- vntok 4y agoWhy does it assume that no bombers would be downed en route? Why does it assume that no missile would be intercepted?
- pb7 4y agoIt’s a shockingly simplistic simulation to the point that I’m not sure attaching the Princeton brand to it is doing them any favors. I was expecting to learn something new but this is even more basic than I could have guessed knowing nothing.
- practice9 4y ago> It’s a shockingly simplistic simulation to the point that I’m not sure attaching the Princeton brand to it is doing them any favors. Nuclear fearmongering is the new "current thing", so they are hurrying to take advantage of that. But such is the academic world nowadays (more citations = more headlines = more cash for the university and the lab). Mass media is on the same track (bad incentives in action, amplified by internet)
- data_maan 4y agoSo would you say we have nothing to fear?
- mechanical_bear 4y ago2019
- alexvoda 4y agoNot doing favors at all. This lowered my impression of the Princeton brand.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- XorNot 4y agoYeah this stood out to me. That whole area is covered in anti-air defenses for this explicit purpose. Practical experience today show's Soviet-era AA systems downing cruise missiles regularly in Ukraine. There's a bizarre foundational assumption that during the "tactical" phase every weapon committed is successful, and I have no idea why. In fact it's not clear at all to me why there even is a "tactical" stage of the war: the EU powers being obliterated with nuclear weapons would immediately target Moscow for decapitation strikes, they have no reason to hold back.
- rutierut 4y agoAre they providing the data they use anywhere? Are they just expecting that all Russian nukes will actually make it to the US? The US has been somewhat open about the immense difficulty of keeping it's nuclear arsenal working reliably and has demonstrated at least some capability to intercept nuclear payloads. Russian state of it's arsenal is likely going to be worse and the actual ability of the US to intercept is likely going to be better.
- Aeolun 4y agoI don’t think you can use unknowable things like ‘state of the nuclear arsenal’, or ‘potential ability to negate or intercept nuclear weapons’ in your simulation as they’re probably state secrets, even if you did somehow know what they were.
- data_maan 4y agoBut you can trust the conclusion: you have a good chance of dying in such a scenario.
- luma 4y agoThe US has been physically inspecting Russia's arsenal (and vice versa) under the terms of New START: https://www.state.gov/new-start/ https://www.state.gov/new-start/ These inspections don't actually test the functionality, but we should have a pretty good idea of the condition of their nuclear arsenal, as they have of ours, as that is part of how MAD works. From that page: Implementation: The information provided through the treaty’s implementation contributes to reducing the risk of strategic surprise, mistrust, and miscalculations that can result from excessive secrecy or decisions based on worst-case assumptions. Since the New START Treaty’s entry into force, as of late January 2022, the two parties have conducted: * 328 on-site inspections * 24,000+ notifications exchanged * 19 meetings of the Bilateral Consultative Commission, and * 42 biannual data exchanges on strategic offensive arms subject to the treaty. Treaty Duration: The treaty’s original duration was 10 years (until February 5, 2021), with the option for the Parties to agree to extend it for up to an additional five years. The United States and Russian Federation agreed on a five-year extension of New START to keep it in force through February 4, 2026. The treaty includes a withdrawal clause that is standard in arms control agreements. Russian Compliance: Although the United States has raised implementation-related questions and concerns with the Russian Federation through diplomatic channels and in the context of the BCC, the United States has determined annually since the treaty’s entry into force, across multiple administrations, the Russian Federation’s compliance with its treaty obligations. U.S. Compliance: The United States is in compliance with its New START obligations. The Russian Federation has criticized U.S. procedures used to convert B-52H heavy bombers and Trident-II SLBM launchers. The United States stands by its conversion procedures, which render the converted SLBM launchers and heavy bombers incapable of employing nuclear weapons thereby removing them from accountability under the treaty.
- downvotetruth 4y agoParis, Dublin (radar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Defending_Irish_airspace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland%E2%80%93NATO_relations...), Madrid, Toyko & Australia not being targeted make it that much more unrealistic. Even if those were hit any other remaining urban area would have its population get dragged in for peace keeping & humanitarian clean up.
- anonymousDan 4y agoWhy would Dublin be targeted?
- Aeolun 4y agoEveryone hates Dublin. That said, I don’t think it would be targeted since it’s existence is a greater detriment to the enemy than it’s destruction.
- jrumbut 4y agoObviously you have to start somewhere with a simulation, but to me it seems like you'd want to quickly add in the food/water/energy aspect and perhaps consider the additional damage caused by conventional weapons. It seems as though at least one of the simulated parties has a current doctrine of trying to destroy power plants and food distribution hubs, we'd have to assume that will be part of an apocalyptic exchange.
- atoav 4y ago> It seems as though at least one of the simulated parties has a current doctrine of trying to destroy power plants and food distribution hubs Given the state of economic "optimization" our current systems are operating under I would imagine that even if the enemy did not strike energy and food distribution centers on purpose these systems would fall apart pretty quickly. Redundancy and resilience costs money, money that would not land in certain pockets if spent.
- chiefalchemist 4y agoFall apart? They'd be taken apart. People have to eat. The level of fear would could create an unprecedented and unpredictable mob mentality. See 6 Jan for example.
- atoav 4y agoIt being taken apart counts as falling apart in my book. Panic and mobs are one thing, but certainly something like the interruption of continous cooling chains would play into it as well.
- lifeinthevoid 4y agoAll that suffering, kudos to the people who will attempt to rebuild civilization after that. I will not be one of them.
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y agoSo it looks like if things get tense, we should al emigrate to Australia then?
- thisistheend123 4y agoThis is scary.
- philjohn 4y agoAnd this scenario is why the billionaires are building survival shelters in NZ.
- 7373737373 4y agoI don't get how that is a viable survival attempt. Surely NZ must be targeted all over when this has already become a meme
- krisoft 4y ago> Surely NZ must be targeted all over when this has already become a meme Why would that be the case? Destroying rich people is not the goal of nuclear weapons. (There are much easier ways to kill them, if a nuclear armed state wishes so.) > I don't get how that is a viable survival attempt. New Zeland doesn’t have nuclear weapons. This is their declared policy. In case of a global nuclear conflict you can waste warheads on them, but any warheads aimed at them have better use against the weapons or the cities of your nuclear armed enemies. (Either as direct means of preventing a launch against you, or as a retaliation to preempt an attack with.) It is also very far from almost anywhere. Which helps in three ways: it is unlikely that the country gets dragged into some neighbourly small scale war by accident, it makes the country less threatening in a post-apocalyptic world, and it somewhat protects the country from radioactive fallout. Is it guaranteed that there won’t be a nuclear attack agains NZ? No, of course there are no hard guarantees about anything. But on a strategical level it is reasonable to expect to be safer than many other places.
- moistly 4y agoThe Māori have a contentious relationship with the colonialists who took their land. I would not expect them to welcome the very people that are to blame for tossing nukes around. They are ferocious warriors and they will take back their islands.
- data_maan 4y agoHow would be wonderfully ironic would it be, if a well-known Google shareholder flees to his private NZ residence, only to be finished off by Māori. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58128475.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-581... I think once an entire, visible class of people from the enemy (e.g. from Russia's view, the Silicon Valley millionaires) flock to a place, the place becomes visible on the global map and probability rises that it might just get a rocket. The safest places are probably also those places that Larry Page would now like, like poor third-world countries that yet have some level of autarky.
- kensai 4y agoThis is a very pessimistic (but still quite possible) scenario and hopefully it will not realize. I once per year watch myself the movie "The Day After" (1983) to remind me of the horrible consequences. If you have not done it until now, here's a link for the full movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-phsyn3KQM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-phsyn3KQM Just don't blame me for the miserable tight stomach afterwards... :-/
- data_maan 4y agoThis should probably be required watching on a population level - to make sure people don't get complacent and are aware in the risks and can push their politicians to do everything they can do avoid such an outcome.
- password54321 4y agoWhy watch fiction when there are documentaries about Hiroshima?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sheerun 4y agoI guess suspenseful music is integral part of nuclear simulations
- 7373737373 4y agoThe Defcon soundtrack is quite fitting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hrqqld2Aew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hrqqld2Aew
- stephc_int13 4y agoWhy so few strikes in France and UK? Two countries with a nuclear arsenal...
- practice9 4y agoNATO & USA in particular already said they will respond conventionally in the event of Russian nuclear first strike. Also in simulation no Russian fighter jets / bombers were intercepted & shot down while bombing Europe, which is very (> 70%) unrealistic. Russians do not even try to enter Ukrainian airspace, and it's much less saturated with air defence systems
- neuronic 4y agoWith brand new IRIS-T deployed near Kyiv good luck flying any hostile military plane over that city ever again. That's probably also why they move to Iranian kamikaze drones.
- pmoriarty 4y ago"NATO & USA in particular already said they will respond conventionally in the event of Russian nuclear first strike." Do you happen to have a link to that announcement? Everything I've heard from them on the subject has been pretty vague talk about proportionality.
- mrcheesebreeze 4y agoI would assume it depends on the kind of strike. If the russians use small yield nukes not much bigger than regular missiles I really doubt any nato response would happen. The reality is a response is a possible avenue to real nuclear war, its stupid to basically commit suicide like that. Russia wouldn't dare let anything reach the rest of europe, any nukes they use are almost certainly going to be small yield which nato wouldn't bother responding too, they are about as big as regular missiles.
- dandanua 4y ago> I really doubt any nato response would happen So, you propose normalization of nuclear strikes usage by invading countries? Which are committing genocide, war crimes, terror. Yet losing a conventional war because of their utter stupidity and incompetence.
- 4y ago
- stephc_int13 4y agoAt the highest level, war is like business, full of opportunities and risks that have to be carefully weighted. Contrary to somewhat popular belief, there are winners and losers after a war. The US partially built its supremacy thanks to the two world wars. But nuclear weapons are obviously different. I highly doubt that this kind of simulation is realistic. We're generally bad at predicting things that never happened, and this is why it is unlikely to happen, not because of the colossal death count, but because of the unpredictability.
- fny 4y ago> The US partially built its supremacy thanks to the two world wars. Two world wars that it did not initiate. The initial participants in wars more often than not sustain heavy losses. It's a suboptimal strategy to win anything.
- yosito 4y ago> Two world wars that it did not initiate. It hasn't initiated the current conflict either, despite Russian propaganda.
- stephc_int13 4y agoThere is an apparent pattern in modern history where "strong hands" leaders severely underestimate their opponents and lose everything in war. There are counter examples in more ancient history. And to be clear, I am strongly anti-war.
- vladich 4y agoWell, when you impose economic embargo (as the US did on Japan), and you supply one of the parties (the UK) with weapons, you might not necessarily initiate the war, but you in fact actively participate in it. You can get away with that involvement if the threat is relatively minor (like in Vietnam or Afghanistan cases), but history tells us you can't avoid entering the war if what you do is an existential threat for the other party. Now try to replace Japan with Russia and UK with Ukraine and you can see where it is going. Also, in this war it's not necessary to occupy the territory, so while the US territory was safe during both world wars, it's not the case now.
- mikewarot 4y agoI'm 0:47 into the video, and it's already stretched past credulity to the breaking point. We've seen how completely the kleptocracy has crippled the Russian military. Does anyone seriously think that a single weapon would be used, given the extremely low probability of making in through a number of steps including: * Someone, a person with family and friends, has to follow orders that could kill them and everyone they know, to advance a war they possibly don't support. * They have to target the right location, and not some relatively empty area to appear to be doing their job * The missile has to correctly launch * A single very anticipated launch has to avoid all interception * It has to accurately make it to its destination * All of the parts that have been in storage since the end of the cold war have to have been properly maintained, maintenance that costs the US about $10,000,000 per year each. Any small mismatch in timing, composition of the core due to nuclear decay or humidity and corrosion, and electronics all have to work within microseconds of each other. To use a single weapon with all these risks, and break a 75 year Taboo against their wartime use, is not something a rational actor would do. Furthermore, the entire US military would have positive confirmation within 90 seconds of the nuclear detonation, and begin to react according to existing well tested plans. Next, the US and NATO have a vast array of non-nuclear responses that would effectively cripple Russian ability to project force beyond its borders. The conflict in Ukraine is just the stuff we can put into the hands of those quickly trained, and NERFed enough to avoid deep strikes into Russia. Also, you have to look at the human factors of those who support Putin internally, they don't want to loose all their spoils of their efforts which are mostly situated outside of Russia.
- neuronic 4y agoBy now, I think you can safely drop the assumption that we are dealing with a rational actor. Also those around Putin have been put into place for decades. He's been scheming at least since his KGB job in East Germany (GDR) where he is still revered to this day. He is effectively ruining the lives of every Russian at this point including the oligarchs. If the Russian elites cared about Russia at all or even just their own lives, they would move to remove Putin by any means necessary as soon as possible. The fact that he still holds power after this legendary series of fuck ups and his oligarch killing spree tells you one thing: we cannot rely on rationality and people clinging to their families, lives or wealth. It's emotional chaos fueled by propaganda.
- grecy 4y agoWas anyone else surprised by the very low number of fatalities? At 1:06 in the video "The Tactical Plan" says Russia sends 300 nuclear warheads and NATO responds with approx. 180 warheads, but the immediate casualties are estimated only 2.6 million. Maybe I've been utterly misinformed, but I thought just one "modern" nuclear warhead detonating in any major city in the world would kill more than that instantly. For 480 of them to go off and only kill 2.6 million people is kind of shocking, really.
- 93po 4y agoI have two guesses: this simulation is really inaccurate, or the average warhead is actually quite small and targeting military assets instead of civilian ones. A nuclear bomb on a military facility maybe only needs to be big enough to destroy a few square miles, not big enough to level Manhattan. edit: after searching, average ICBM is 500-1000 kilotons which basically destroys most buildings in 50 square miles and causes third degree burns for around 150 square miles (probably killing most). Nuke map shows 1.5 million fatalities in downtown Manhattan with 800 kilotons
- grecy 4y agoThanks for the info. > average ICBM is 500-1000 kilotons which basically destroys most buildings in 50 square miles and causes third degree burns for around 150 square miles (probably killing most). OK, makes sense to me. > Nuke map shows 1.5 million fatalities in downtown Manhattan with 800 kilotons Huh? That means there are only 1.5 million people in 50 square miles of Manhattan? (ignoring the 150 of third degree burns) That seems terribly low to me. Manhattan in it's entirety is 22 square miles [1] So one "average" nuke will easily kill everyone in all of Manhattan and a ton of the surrounding area... but that's only 1.5 mil? [1] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=manhattan+swaure+miles+size https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=manhattan...
- 93po 4y agoI agree that nuke map could be pretty wrong. I sort of doubt they store population density information for the entire planet
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Archelaos 4y agoI have general comment on what is discussed in several individual threads here: Such "simulations" should be seen as a tool for thought, not as truly accurate scenario of a most probable future. It is rather like assigning some numbers to a qualitative argument in a debate. To keep the complexity in check, you leave out everything that you think is not relevant to the overall outcome of the simulation. To challenge such a simulation, a critic must present his or her own simulation showing that the omitted factor may well be relevant instead. In the Princton simulation the participants use only a bit more than 10 percent of their arsenal. Assuming that most warheads get through, simulating an intercept rate would be redundant if one also assumes that the margin of error on how many of their arsenals participants would use is much larger. Likewise, focusing on Russia and the USA already covers almost 90 percent of all nuclear warheads. Simulating the other nuclear powers would probably not change much in the overall picture. However, in view of the complexity of the influencing factors and the multitude of possible scenarios, the fundamental question arises as to whether such simulations can at all provide deeper general insights into the topic than what we already vaguely suspect.
- Nomentatus 4y agoEspecially since finding participants here whose psychology and job experience parallel Putin's quite closely will not be easy. One the one hand: Putin bluffs about whether he's bluffing about bluffing. His word is chaff. If he says he won't be invading, it's a pretty good indication he will. Etc. On the other hand: When one person is vital to the course of events and can't be removed, prediction generally becomes a fool's game, either way; because human brains are, needless to say, highly complex. Concentrating power means anything can happen (but not that anything will, of course.) Pick your poison. With Putin being the other player, no course of action, including pacifism, is anything but risky. Gird your loins (as none of the kids say.)
- data_maan 4y agoThis comment is wrong and I'm negatively surprised it made it to the top, since I would have believed HN had a more discriminating approach. The comment mirrors a very similar argument made against climate change: Since we can't simulate it accurately, we say the entire simulation is useless (" whether such simulations can at all provide deeper general insights into the topic than what we already vaguely suspect"). The key benefit of such simulations is not always scientific insight, but making the problem and its urgency palpable for the non-expert. You "vaguely" suspect the problem, but that is not enough to make you go out and do something against it. You need to fully understand it to get the motivation to act in some way (write to your local politician, set up a fundraiser against nuclear proliferation etc.).
- mikewarot 4y agoMeta comment: It seems to me that the best way to address a deep fear of something, is to submit it to HN and let us rip it to shreds.
- aka878 4y agoSo you're saying I should move to Argentina.
- krylon 4y ago"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
- homeland221 4y ago
- rainworld 4y agoA more recent simulation: https://youtu.be/WF0mEOCK2KE https://youtu.be/WF0mEOCK2KE
- andretti1977 4y agoI know it may be off topic but i don't want people to discuss about the reliability of the data involved, no, i want people to reflect about the outcome: end of humanity. It disgusts me to think that maybe 99.99% of world population wouldn't harm another person but due to a ridicolous small fraction of the entire population, we risk to end our lives. This is completely absurd and makes no sense at all.
- civilized 4y agoThe few warmongers often have the support of the majority, e.g. in Russia right now, where polls consistently show 70% support or more for Putin's attack on Ukraine. https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/09/07/my-country-right-or-wrong-russian-public-opinion-on-ukraine-pub-87803 https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/09/07/my-country-right-or... The common folk may find war too unpleasant to conduct themselves, but they rally behind someone who will do it for them.
- andretti1977 4y agoThe common folk may be led to think that the only alternative they have to live is war. And they are led to think that by those small overpowered fraction. It has been the case for a lot of modern wars (even those pushed by us or nato). It's not a matter of country.
- therusskiy 4y agoIt's ridiculously easy to influence people through propaganda. Like you, for example, or majority of "west" for that matter, has completely believed that "70%" number that was released by Russian government.
- civilized 4y agoExcept they were not released by the Russian government.
- therusskiy 4y ago
- zvmaz 4y agoI always thought that a nuclear war is the end of us all.
- jondeval 4y agoWhen I've read about scenarios like this or the topic of mutually assured destruction is discussed, I notice that the concept of 'retaliation' is taken as a given. The premise of immediate retaliation creates the hypothetical domino effect that seems to polarize the discussion between (1) total prevention at all costs or (2) a terrible mass casualty scenario. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is this assumption of retaliation grounded in the reality of our political systems or perhaps a theory of modern warfare that I'm missing? Don't get me wrong, it sound very plausible, but that is exactly why I'm questioning it and would like to expand my understanding so that it's grounded in something more than just a hunch.
- manmal 4y agoImmediate retaliation needs to be threatened at least, and in a believable way. Otherwise, there is little deterrence for bad players.
- cronix 4y agoQuite simply, it's basic human nature. I don't think you can name a country that its citizens would remain complacent after a nuclear attack. New York, LA, DC, Chicago suddenly get wiped off the map. You don't think the population would demand retaliation? Not only the massive immediate loss of life, but it would decimate the economy. Look at the response to 9/11. That was "just" 2 buildings. Now imagine entire cities that would be impossible to rebuild or habitat.
- copperx 4y ago> You don't think the population would demand retaliation? No. After seeing the devastation, the population would demand not to escalate.
- jondeval 4y agoSee this is interesting to me. I tend to agree with you and I think I would be in the de-escalate camp. Now even if that group is in the minority, how large of a minority would it have to be to at least question the 'guaranteed immediate strategic nuclear retaliation' assumption in our models and plans?
- malwarebytess 4y agoDefcon ripoff
- 404mm 4y agoI wonder what’s the amount of warheads that can be deployed within minutes-to-hours. For the sake of argument, let’s say the US have around 5-6k warheads. How many are somewhere in cold storage, far away from their potential launchers or carriers - and therefore less likely to be used. I think that comparing these numbers would a what determines the outcome very significantly. Once communication is down, the armies will become logistically crippled.
- somenameforme 4y agoThe scenarios shown in the simulations were only using a tiny percent of each country's entire arsenal, the final fireworks being caused by 150-300 nukes. And that also didn't even speculate on new developments, such as 'typhoon nukes.' A tiny fraction of nuclear war is enough to completely end modern civilization. Unrestrained nuclear war is enough to end civilization.
- IAmGraydon 4y agoEnough are ready to fire to turn a large percentage of the world into a glass parking lot. At least that’s the case with the US, French and UK arsenal. I have serious doubts about the status of the Russian arsenal, but I’m sure they could do an unimaginable amount of damage even if they landed only 1% of them.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- aliqot 4y agoYear 1 will be about survival, fiefdoms and immediate resources. Years 5 will be managing latent fallout and wars over territory and natural resources. Year 20 we will focus on the rebuild, children will only know this as 'life' Years 50-100 we repeat and maybe this time finish ourselves off. We are a war species, and we're not unique in that regard. Any organism sufficiently advanced enough will reach this from the moment they're able to assign value to a resource.
- tomohawk 4y agoWhere do the apes come in?
- aliqot 4y agoIn the future we'll determine that the Pleiades[0] cluster has contained enough earth material to be a functioning hot backup of our own home this whole time. ~400 light years away, Pleiades aka Messier 45 can carry us until it disperses in 250 million years. It's likely we are the apes in comparison to our brothers in the Seven Sisters area. The suns don't set there, they just move to make room for the others. [0] - The same can be said of many asterisms that currently make up that portion of the Golden Gate
- mahathu 4y agosource for the last part?
- aliqot 4y agoThe extinction of the lesser hominids
- BonoboIO 4y agoOn (I think the atp) a podcast one participant said that he lived in a part of New York, that would be hit first in a nuclear war and he doesn’t have to think about survival or living in a post war world. That was mindblowing to me, make sense too. Why live in a world, where you are probably killed by radiation, looters or injuries and suffer a painful death. Watching your family die in front of you, when it could be over in an instant. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want war :D But at least the podcaster has a point.
- xg15 4y agoI was honestly feeling a lot more comfortable when those figures were just movie props from Wargames.
- bayraktar 4y agoLacks plausibility. Doesn't attempt to describe the context in which this Russian first strike against NATO might occur. Doesn't mention battlefield nukes, EMP attacks or even high-altitude demonstrative detonations that might more plausibly proceed an actual high-yield land strike on Europe. Doesn't even mention the yield of this first strike, either. Really, what's the point? They could have done this "simulation" back in 1983. In fact, it makes me think like I'm watching a certain movie from back in '83. '83, what a year.
- pyuser583 4y agoThere was a report published by FEMA in the early 1980s about the outcome of a nuclear war. The summary was worst case scenario (for US) would be 50% of population dead, and we wouldn’t reach pre war GDP for a decade. Basically what happened to Eastern Europe during WWII. It’s not good. It’s bad. But it’s not “end of the human race” bad. Paraphrasing the report: “There is no credible scenario where our knowledge of germ theory will be destroyed, and that knowledge will save the lives of millions, regardless of whether there is a nuclear war.”
- Seb-C 4y agoThis scenario makes no sense. How would russian aircrafts with known nuclear capability cross so much NATO airspace without being taken down immediately? Also, I don't think answering a single nuke with another nuke would be a smart move, especially when the radioactive fallout would hurt allies. Conventional destruction of nuclear and military capabilities seems a much more reasonable and efficient defense to me.