8 ms·

How Bad a Nuclear War Would Actually Be

24 points by dawkins 3y ago

foxyv 3y ago
Oh boy, here we go with the scare journalism again. Nuclear disarmament would be a great thing, but this garbage where we make entire generations live in fear of annihilation to sell (Checks Time ads) Flextra Solar panels... No thank you Time.
- haswell 3y ago
  This piece doesn't even mention disarmament, and the stated purpose amounts to: when more people understand the consequences of MAD, it's less likely to happen. As time goes on, the current generation will become more and more removed from the original conditions that resulted in the nuclear arms race, and more disconnected from the potential realities that nuclear war could introduce. At a time when Russia continues to talk about the use of nuclear weapons, it seems appropriate to continue reminding folks about what this actually entails. I suspect the average "let them try" commenter on Facebook/Twitter has very little concept of what this actually means. If there's one category that warrants scary writing, nuclear war would be that category. It's pretty much impossible to explore the topic without touching on some rather terrifying implications.
  - foxyv 3y ago
    I suspect that most of the "Let them try" commenters are plain idiots or trolls. Anyone with half a brain knows what nuclear war means. These articles aren't educational. They are FUD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt
    - lilboiluvr69 3y ago
      I don't understand your comment. FUD for what?
      - foxyv 3y ago
        Selling... checks Time Ads... A Honda Tool set and maybe a subscription.
  - aeternum 3y ago
    The problem with MAD is that its not MAD anymore. Given missile defense systems and hypersonic missiles it has actually become unclear whether the destruction will be mutual. Each side may believe that their tech can both penetrate the enemy and successfully defend. Game theory shows us that war should only occur because of these unknowns (each side believes they will win). Thus given this new tech and the uncertainty on both sides, MAD is arguably weaker than ever before.
- BagelGuy 3y ago
  Humanity built a suicidal doomsday machine that can be set off by accident. It's not scare journalism to remind people of this.
  - foxyv 3y ago
    It IS scare journalism to remind people of this. We use fear, uncertainty, and doubt to sell people magazines and Solar panels. It's part of why we spend $800 billion on military spending in the US. It's part of why these weapons exist in the first place. No thank you!
  - 1letterunixname 3y ago
    Hand-waving conflation and mischaracterization. MAD kept you safe from total war and it cannot be setoff by accident. Permission link is required in the US implementation. It is terrible but it is a white elephant: it cannot be given away but it also is undesirable to keep but still necessary.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  MAD prevents total conventional wars. Without unconventional weapons, China and Russia would invade far more countries without a second thought.
time0ut 3y ago
Is it even possible for Russia to engage in an all out nuclear war at this point [0]? I don't want to find out, but it is an interesting question. [0] https://wesodonnell.medium.com/russias-nukes-probably-don-t-work-here-s-why-bd686dec8b6 https://wesodonnell.medium.com/russias-nukes-probably-don-t-...
- simonblack 3y ago
  Judging by the way Russians are destroying the West's 'Wunderwaffe' with ease, I wouldn't stake my life on their Sarmat's and Poseidons being useless. The Russians have a reputation for their weapons to be cheap, plentiful, effective and robust. As Stalin is reputed to have said,"Quantity has a quality all of its own." Meanwhile both the Germans back then and the Americans now, prefer to have fragile, high-tech stuff that gets swamped by the greater numbers of 'good enough' Soviet/Russian stuff. It's no good having a weapon with a 100:1 kill-ratio, if the enemy can throw 101 weapons at it.
  - time0ut 3y ago
    Certainly a single Russian ICBM functioning correctly would be the worst disaster in human history and its a safe assumption at least some have been maintained. I do not want to find out the exact number. This article is talking about a full exchange with Russia as an example. In a purely academic sense, I think its interesting to speculate on if that can even happen. > the way Russians are destroying the West's 'Wunderwaffe' with ease Could you explain what you mean here? What examples do you have in mind?
    - simonblack 3y ago
      Examples of Western weapons that have been found wanting, and that were expected to be 'gamechangers': Germany's Leopard 2 Tanks have been underwhelming in their achievements, and nowhere near as effective as proclaimed to be. And that's apart from the bad look of German Panzers crashing their way though the Ukrainian steppes in a replay of 1941. Just the thing to put a bit a steel in Russians' backbones. Then there was the American Patriot air-defence system that couldn't even protect itself while expending 16 (or was it 32?) missiles. And the American HIMARS systems whose missiles routinely get intercepted And we haven't heard much lately about the M777 artillery which were found to be very fragile when forced to 'shoot n scoot'. I've read somewhere that apparently the moving hooks are attached to the end of the barrel (!) instead of the wheeled-base and so causes stress on the still-hot barrels while towing during that shifting. And which routinely get taken out by Lancets. Then there were the Turkish Bayraktars that were were so famous in the first weeks of the war. They are never heard about anymore, Thery just weren't up to the task. And of course the anti-tank missiles which couldn't even punch a hole in the thin top armour of a tank when fired directly down on the tank from a bedroom window. And anyway, a lot of those had dead batteries too. It's been said that Western weapons are designed to be profitable, and Russian weapons are designed to be effective. I'm rapidly being converted to that point of view. Tom Cruise and 'Top Gun' not withstanding.
sterlind 3y ago
The most surprising bit of this for me was nuclear winter. I thought the idea fell out of favor, but they cite a recent Nature paper claiming up to 99% of the population of the global North would starve. Do any governments stockpile food? Afaict, the US doesn't keep emergency stocks of non-perishables. Though according to the paper it would take ~8 years for food production to pick back up substantially, so that might just be too long.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  I don't think any government stockpiles enough food to keep a significant fraction of its population alive for nearly a decade. But in the US, on the Great Plains, there are all these towns with grain elevators. I'd guess that what's in that grain elevator could feed the population of the town (plus surrounding farms) for several years. (Yeah, I know, wheat or corn, by itself, doesn't have all the nutrients people need...)
  - moralestapia 3y ago
    If money/resources were no object, is it actually possible to store 10 years worth of food for, let's say, a single person? I'd imagine almost everything, even perfectly stored would spoil by that timeframe.
    - LinuxBender 3y ago
      If money/resources were no object If money is no object then yes it can be done. One can order massive amounts of freeze dried food and store a lot of treated water. Officially it is good retaining 97% nutrients and taste for 25 years. Unofficially it's good until the container decomposes. I have enough to last about a year of daily consumption and that was a serious investment but has more nutritional value than gold or silver. There are a few companies that can do custom orders and there is one consumer company that sells an assortment of different size freeze dryers [1]. Watch videos on how those work before contemplating getting one as they are noisy and involve time and effort. My local grocery store sells a few generic meat, egg and vegetable freeze dried foods, butter, beans, etc... Even some unhealthy stuff I guess for psychological effect as comfort food. Nutristore [2] is one of the more affordable brands I get. Tastes better than MRE's from the 90's but can be bland. One must add their own desired seasonings or sauces. There are other brands that have better taste and more options but they also cost a lot more. All of this requires adding water. One should watch videos on how to properly treat water for prolonged storage. [1] - https://harvestright.com/ https://harvestright.com/ [2] - https://nutristorefoods.com/ https://nutristorefoods.com/
ipnon 3y ago
A nuclear war wouldn’t eliminate all governments involved, so in some sense they are “winnable.” The best way to frame MAD is not that all nations involved are destroyed, but rather that a Malthusian trap is simultaneously triggered for all nations. Nuclear war destroys the global economy, without which we all no longer can specialize but must become generalist subsistence farmers. In this scenario many people die in a few weeks and most people die in a few years, but still some billions eke out a meager existence based on their geographical location and the difficulty of transitioning to a subsistence economy. It should be noted that the author is not a military theorist, and that he assumes there is no ladder of escalation, most targets are countervalue, and that most strikes are groundbursts. There are also reasonable arguments[0] to be made that so-called “limited” nuclear war is the more likely outcome of nuclear engagement. The fact that not even this has been seen since 1945 suggests that even “limited” nuclear war is not in the interests of any nuclear powers today. It must be emphasized that nuclear weapons are more of a political tool than a military one so long as the nuclear taboo holds. Countries whose international and domestic reputations depend on an appearance of indomitability may wish to emphasize their nuclear posture during times of military and political crisis. The purpose of which is at least partially to generate irrational discourse in foreign media. In my opinion tensions were the highest when Biden made his “Armageddon” comment and have cooled substantially since then. [0] https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780804790918/html https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780804790918...
deepspace 3y ago
Many people believe that the film "Threads" from 1984 is one of the most accurate depictions of the aftermath of a nuclear war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film)
- sillywalk 3y ago
  I can also recommend The War Game[0] from the BBC. "the effect of the film has been judged by the BBC to be too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting. It will, however, be shown to invited audiences..." "The film eventually premiered at the National Film Theatre in London, on 13 April 1966, where it ran until 3 May.[4] It was then shown abroad at several film festivals, including the Venice one where it won the Special Prize. It also won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 1967." [0] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Game
elzbardico 3y ago
Forget about the physical effects. Even if we don’t have nuclear winter, even if fallout is not a concern in your area, you wouldn’t want to survive anywhere in the world the catastrophic destruction of the economy if you live in the cities.
sillywalk 3y ago
If it comes to it by accident, or by shitheads, I'd hope I was instantly incinerated, rather than basically any other option, to include surviving perfectly intact.
- throwawaymobule 3y ago
  Any reason you can't handle that yourself, if it comes to it? Being atomized faster than your nerves fire does sound like the way to go though.
simonblack 3y ago
"... but we're not using Strategic nukes, we only using Tactical nukes". So where is the dividing line? When does a large Tactical Nuke become a small Strategic Nuke? It's all one spectrum. The use of a nuke is the use of a nuke. That's why there is a 'Use it or lose it' doctrine. Minutes after the first nuke is used, people will fire off everything they have. Some people think a small tactical nuke can be 'got away with'. I'm extremely pessimistic about the world today. Nobody wins in a Nuclear War. I don't reckon we'll reach 2030.
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  When we reach 2030, I'll raise a glass for you mate.
  - simonblack 3y ago
    Thank you. I hope we're both around to do that.

24 points by dawkins 3y ago

Oh boy, here we go with the scare journalism again. Nuclear disarmament would be a great thing, but this garbage where we make entire generations live in fear of annihilation to sell (Checks Time ads) Flextra Solar panels... No thank you Time.

haswell 3y ago
This piece doesn't even mention disarmament, and the stated purpose amounts to: when more people understand the consequences of MAD, it's less likely to happen. As time goes on, the current generation will become more and more removed from the original conditions that resulted in the nuclear arms race, and more disconnected from the potential realities that nuclear war could introduce. At a time when Russia continues to talk about the use of nuclear weapons, it seems appropriate to continue reminding folks about what this actually entails. I suspect the average "let them try" commenter on Facebook/Twitter has very little concept of what this actually means. If there's one category that warrants scary writing, nuclear war would be that category. It's pretty much impossible to explore the topic without touching on some rather terrifying implications.
- foxyv 3y ago
  I suspect that most of the "Let them try" commenters are plain idiots or trolls. Anyone with half a brain knows what nuclear war means. These articles aren't educational. They are FUD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt
  - lilboiluvr69 3y ago
    I don't understand your comment. FUD for what?
    - foxyv 3y ago
      Selling... checks Time Ads... A Honda Tool set and maybe a subscription.
- aeternum 3y ago
  The problem with MAD is that its not MAD anymore. Given missile defense systems and hypersonic missiles it has actually become unclear whether the destruction will be mutual. Each side may believe that their tech can both penetrate the enemy and successfully defend. Game theory shows us that war should only occur because of these unknowns (each side believes they will win). Thus given this new tech and the uncertainty on both sides, MAD is arguably weaker than ever before.
BagelGuy 3y ago
Humanity built a suicidal doomsday machine that can be set off by accident. It's not scare journalism to remind people of this.
- foxyv 3y ago
  It IS scare journalism to remind people of this. We use fear, uncertainty, and doubt to sell people magazines and Solar panels. It's part of why we spend $800 billion on military spending in the US. It's part of why these weapons exist in the first place. No thank you!
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  Hand-waving conflation and mischaracterization. MAD kept you safe from total war and it cannot be setoff by accident. Permission link is required in the US implementation. It is terrible but it is a white elephant: it cannot be given away but it also is undesirable to keep but still necessary.
1letterunixname 3y ago
MAD prevents total conventional wars. Without unconventional weapons, China and Russia would invade far more countries without a second thought.

time0ut 3y ago

Is it even possible for Russia to engage in an all out nuclear war at this point [0]? I don't want to find out, but it is an interesting question. [0] https://wesodonnell.medium.com/russias-nukes-probably-don-t-work-here-s-why-bd686dec8b6 https://wesodonnell.medium.com/russias-nukes-probably-don-t-...

simonblack 3y ago
Judging by the way Russians are destroying the West's 'Wunderwaffe' with ease, I wouldn't stake my life on their Sarmat's and Poseidons being useless. The Russians have a reputation for their weapons to be cheap, plentiful, effective and robust. As Stalin is reputed to have said,"Quantity has a quality all of its own." Meanwhile both the Germans back then and the Americans now, prefer to have fragile, high-tech stuff that gets swamped by the greater numbers of 'good enough' Soviet/Russian stuff. It's no good having a weapon with a 100:1 kill-ratio, if the enemy can throw 101 weapons at it.
- time0ut 3y ago
  Certainly a single Russian ICBM functioning correctly would be the worst disaster in human history and its a safe assumption at least some have been maintained. I do not want to find out the exact number. This article is talking about a full exchange with Russia as an example. In a purely academic sense, I think its interesting to speculate on if that can even happen. > the way Russians are destroying the West's 'Wunderwaffe' with ease Could you explain what you mean here? What examples do you have in mind?
  - simonblack 3y ago
    Examples of Western weapons that have been found wanting, and that were expected to be 'gamechangers': Germany's Leopard 2 Tanks have been underwhelming in their achievements, and nowhere near as effective as proclaimed to be. And that's apart from the bad look of German Panzers crashing their way though the Ukrainian steppes in a replay of 1941. Just the thing to put a bit a steel in Russians' backbones. Then there was the American Patriot air-defence system that couldn't even protect itself while expending 16 (or was it 32?) missiles. And the American HIMARS systems whose missiles routinely get intercepted And we haven't heard much lately about the M777 artillery which were found to be very fragile when forced to 'shoot n scoot'. I've read somewhere that apparently the moving hooks are attached to the end of the barrel (!) instead of the wheeled-base and so causes stress on the still-hot barrels while towing during that shifting. And which routinely get taken out by Lancets. Then there were the Turkish Bayraktars that were were so famous in the first weeks of the war. They are never heard about anymore, Thery just weren't up to the task. And of course the anti-tank missiles which couldn't even punch a hole in the thin top armour of a tank when fired directly down on the tank from a bedroom window. And anyway, a lot of those had dead batteries too. It's been said that Western weapons are designed to be profitable, and Russian weapons are designed to be effective. I'm rapidly being converted to that point of view. Tom Cruise and 'Top Gun' not withstanding.

sterlind 3y ago

The most surprising bit of this for me was nuclear winter. I thought the idea fell out of favor, but they cite a recent Nature paper claiming up to 99% of the population of the global North would starve. Do any governments stockpile food? Afaict, the US doesn't keep emergency stocks of non-perishables. Though according to the paper it would take ~8 years for food production to pick back up substantially, so that might just be too long.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
I don't think any government stockpiles enough food to keep a significant fraction of its population alive for nearly a decade. But in the US, on the Great Plains, there are all these towns with grain elevators. I'd guess that what's in that grain elevator could feed the population of the town (plus surrounding farms) for several years. (Yeah, I know, wheat or corn, by itself, doesn't have all the nutrients people need...)
- moralestapia 3y ago
  If money/resources were no object, is it actually possible to store 10 years worth of food for, let's say, a single person? I'd imagine almost everything, even perfectly stored would spoil by that timeframe.
  - LinuxBender 3y ago
    If money/resources were no object If money is no object then yes it can be done. One can order massive amounts of freeze dried food and store a lot of treated water. Officially it is good retaining 97% nutrients and taste for 25 years. Unofficially it's good until the container decomposes. I have enough to last about a year of daily consumption and that was a serious investment but has more nutritional value than gold or silver. There are a few companies that can do custom orders and there is one consumer company that sells an assortment of different size freeze dryers [1]. Watch videos on how those work before contemplating getting one as they are noisy and involve time and effort. My local grocery store sells a few generic meat, egg and vegetable freeze dried foods, butter, beans, etc... Even some unhealthy stuff I guess for psychological effect as comfort food. Nutristore [2] is one of the more affordable brands I get. Tastes better than MRE's from the 90's but can be bland. One must add their own desired seasonings or sauces. There are other brands that have better taste and more options but they also cost a lot more. All of this requires adding water. One should watch videos on how to properly treat water for prolonged storage. [1] - https://harvestright.com/ https://harvestright.com/ [2] - https://nutristorefoods.com/ https://nutristorefoods.com/

ipnon 3y ago

A nuclear war wouldn’t eliminate all governments involved, so in some sense they are “winnable.” The best way to frame MAD is not that all nations involved are destroyed, but rather that a Malthusian trap is simultaneously triggered for all nations. Nuclear war destroys the global economy, without which we all no longer can specialize but must become generalist subsistence farmers. In this scenario many people die in a few weeks and most people die in a few years, but still some billions eke out a meager existence based on their geographical location and the difficulty of transitioning to a subsistence economy. It should be noted that the author is not a military theorist, and that he assumes there is no ladder of escalation, most targets are countervalue, and that most strikes are groundbursts. There are also reasonable arguments[0] to be made that so-called “limited” nuclear war is the more likely outcome of nuclear engagement. The fact that not even this has been seen since 1945 suggests that even “limited” nuclear war is not in the interests of any nuclear powers today. It must be emphasized that nuclear weapons are more of a political tool than a military one so long as the nuclear taboo holds. Countries whose international and domestic reputations depend on an appearance of indomitability may wish to emphasize their nuclear posture during times of military and political crisis. The purpose of which is at least partially to generate irrational discourse in foreign media. In my opinion tensions were the highest when Biden made his “Armageddon” comment and have cooled substantially since then. [0] https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780804790918/html https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780804790918...

deepspace 3y ago

Many people believe that the film "Threads" from 1984 is one of the most accurate depictions of the aftermath of a nuclear war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads_(1984_film)

sillywalk 3y ago
I can also recommend The War Game[0] from the BBC. "the effect of the film has been judged by the BBC to be too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting. It will, however, be shown to invited audiences..." "The film eventually premiered at the National Film Theatre in London, on 13 April 1966, where it ran until 3 May.[4] It was then shown abroad at several film festivals, including the Venice one where it won the Special Prize. It also won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 1967." [0] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Game

elzbardico 3y ago

Forget about the physical effects. Even if we don’t have nuclear winter, even if fallout is not a concern in your area, you wouldn’t want to survive anywhere in the world the catastrophic destruction of the economy if you live in the cities.

sillywalk 3y ago

If it comes to it by accident, or by shitheads, I'd hope I was instantly incinerated, rather than basically any other option, to include surviving perfectly intact.

throwawaymobule 3y ago
Any reason you can't handle that yourself, if it comes to it? Being atomized faster than your nerves fire does sound like the way to go though.

simonblack 3y ago

"... but we're not using Strategic nukes, we only using Tactical nukes". So where is the dividing line? When does a large Tactical Nuke become a small Strategic Nuke? It's all one spectrum. The use of a nuke is the use of a nuke. That's why there is a 'Use it or lose it' doctrine. Minutes after the first nuke is used, people will fire off everything they have. Some people think a small tactical nuke can be 'got away with'. I'm extremely pessimistic about the world today. Nobody wins in a Nuclear War. I don't reckon we'll reach 2030.

hammyhavoc 3y ago
When we reach 2030, I'll raise a glass for you mate.
- simonblack 3y ago
  Thank you. I hope we're both around to do that.