4 ms·

The collapse of this network is a very real scenario for the collapse of civilization. When the power plant can't get a spare part, because the shipping truck

The collapse of this network is a very real scenario for the collapse of civilization. When the power plant can't get a spare part, because the shipping truck can't get gas, because the pump in the gas station doesn't have electricity. - and on and on. The entire infrastructure of the world is intertwined. During the last two years I was on projects where one single part could no longer be sourced, and it held up millions of dollars of other inputs. It doesn't take everything collapsing, it only takes just enough.

HPsquared 3y ago
COVID at least made people think about these things, but we have a long way to go.
bumby 3y ago
The book “lights out” gives an eye-opening look at this in terms of the electrical grid. Apparently, there are many transformers that can only be manufactured by a couple overseas manufacturers, sometimes with 18+ month lead times. And some of the infrastructure needed to deliver these parts (e.g., railways) don’t even exist anymore.
- Joeboy 3y ago
  Sounds interesting! Would this be the Ted Koppel one? There seem to be a bunch of books called "Lights Out".
  - bumby 3y ago
    Oh, sorry, yeah it's the Ted Koppel one
RandomLensman 3y ago
The ability to improvise or produce locally (and in limited quantities) is not as poor as often made out (in particular because you throw away the rule book). Doesn't mean some specific things would not be difficult to get. Also, even in wars with heavy and broad destruction there wasn't a collapse of civilization.
- warner25 3y ago
  > even in wars with heavy and broad destruction there wasn't a collapse of civilization This is something that has puzzled me before. Like when I'm reading about the destruction in Ukraine, the active targeting of their electrical grid by Russian airstrikes, in juxtaposition with stories and photos in which it seems that day-to-day life for much of Ukraine is much closer to "normal" than "collapse of civilization." To be clear, I don't mean to downplay what has happened there, or suggest that everything is fine. I'm just surprised by the apparent robustness of the infrastructure, civilization, etc.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    What benefit would there be for people to create chaos and collapse in such situations?
    - warner25 3y ago
      I mean, even if the Russians aren't aiming for that, many people make it sound like modern electrical grids and supply chains in developed nations are always teetering on the edge of collapse, so it shouldn't take much to push them over that edge.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        What incentive do those people have to say that? Are they selling books or movies? Do they want money for investment? Is their job to see dangers? Doesn't mean they are completely wrong or have bad motives either: some problems are avoided because they are pointed out. Also, there is a difference between having grids run 24x7 with no interruptions and war time with interruptions.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      It's a war, that is the driver? Is that the question? Why in a war would you want to hurt the opponent? Collapsing the opponents power grid is a way to reduce the opponents ability to respond, to subdue them. Then once subdued and occupied, then re-build it. I think you would find there is always a balancing act in 'how much to destroy' in order to win, and also limit 'how hard will it be to rebuild once we've won'. But collapse is always part of it, because you are trying to win by hurting the other country.

HPsquared 3y ago

COVID at least made people think about these things, but we have a long way to go.

bumby 3y ago

The book “lights out” gives an eye-opening look at this in terms of the electrical grid. Apparently, there are many transformers that can only be manufactured by a couple overseas manufacturers, sometimes with 18+ month lead times. And some of the infrastructure needed to deliver these parts (e.g., railways) don’t even exist anymore.

Joeboy 3y ago
Sounds interesting! Would this be the Ted Koppel one? There seem to be a bunch of books called "Lights Out".
- bumby 3y ago
  Oh, sorry, yeah it's the Ted Koppel one

RandomLensman 3y ago

The ability to improvise or produce locally (and in limited quantities) is not as poor as often made out (in particular because you throw away the rule book). Doesn't mean some specific things would not be difficult to get. Also, even in wars with heavy and broad destruction there wasn't a collapse of civilization.

warner25 3y ago
> even in wars with heavy and broad destruction there wasn't a collapse of civilization This is something that has puzzled me before. Like when I'm reading about the destruction in Ukraine, the active targeting of their electrical grid by Russian airstrikes, in juxtaposition with stories and photos in which it seems that day-to-day life for much of Ukraine is much closer to "normal" than "collapse of civilization." To be clear, I don't mean to downplay what has happened there, or suggest that everything is fine. I'm just surprised by the apparent robustness of the infrastructure, civilization, etc.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  What benefit would there be for people to create chaos and collapse in such situations?
  - warner25 3y ago
    I mean, even if the Russians aren't aiming for that, many people make it sound like modern electrical grids and supply chains in developed nations are always teetering on the edge of collapse, so it shouldn't take much to push them over that edge.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      What incentive do those people have to say that? Are they selling books or movies? Do they want money for investment? Is their job to see dangers? Doesn't mean they are completely wrong or have bad motives either: some problems are avoided because they are pointed out. Also, there is a difference between having grids run 24x7 with no interruptions and war time with interruptions.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    It's a war, that is the driver? Is that the question? Why in a war would you want to hurt the opponent? Collapsing the opponents power grid is a way to reduce the opponents ability to respond, to subdue them. Then once subdued and occupied, then re-build it. I think you would find there is always a balancing act in 'how much to destroy' in order to win, and also limit 'how hard will it be to rebuild once we've won'. But collapse is always part of it, because you are trying to win by hurting the other country.