3 ms·

Once the world is annihilated, where does it land? What do the occupants do? Such a strange concept.

coin 3y ago
> What do the occupants do? I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens, at the bottom shafts of some of our deepest mines. It would not be difficult. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the suitable minesites in the country, but I shouldn't be surprised if several hundred thousand of our people could be accommodated. Every nation would undoubtedly follow suit.
- ojosilva 3y ago
  I'm just watching Fallout on Amazon Prime TV. I had no previous knowledge about the (video game?) franchise, but what you describe is part of the shows' premise. At one point a character makes a point that these "vaults" are a refuge of a elite, the rich and connected, and does not represent the real world that exists on the face of the Earth.
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y ago
    I believe they're quoting Doctor strange love, the film
  - salad-tycoon 3y ago
    Silo Saga book series is also on Apple TV and similar premise. Also the audible of the series is pretty good.
- kyboren 3y ago
  And before you ask "who decides who goes up and who goes down?", that would not be necessary. It could easily be accomplished by a computer, and the computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time and little to do. But with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, 10 females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within, say, 20 years.
  - coin 3y ago
    Wouldn't that necessitate abandoning the so-called monogamous form of sexual relationship?
- thegrim33 3y ago
  Where does this pervasive notion that once the bombs drop humanity is completely wiped out come from? Any official literature on the topic, even the most pessimistic takes, don't come anywhere close to proposing this. There's absolutely no study produced by any country that says that only people in the most extreme situations (like huddled in the bottom of a deepest mine) would survive. The outside radiation levels from a full-scale nuclear exchange would return to 99% of normal levels within something like only 3 weeks. Yes there would be nuclear winter to contend with, although different sources conflict with each other about how significant the nuclear winter would be, and yes, lots of people would surely die and develop cancer in the aftermath, I'm not denying that, but humans would have absolutely no issue going on and surviving. There's no chance that full nuclear exchange ends humanity. Civilization as we know it, yes. Humanity, no.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > Where does this pervasive notion that once the bombs drop humanity is completely wiped out come from? Multiple sides of the Cold War narrative. MAD == Mutual destruction and there's not much of a deterrent to "if the switch trips everybody dies" if that case in't made. On the RAND Corp side (playing game theory and advanced game theory) there were think tanks pushing "the only way to win is to not wage war" as broadly across the world as possible, and bolstering nuclear winter when it arose even if there were real doubts about that being the case. On the Peacenik side (Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell et al) the story of minor accidents and misunderstandings leading to global destruction was a valuable part of selling disarmament .. it's dangewrous and must be rolled back. The only solid voice at the time against nuclear winter etc. were the supporters (East and West) of tactical nuclear weapons who believed in the use of small "battlefield nukes". During the height of the Cold War the main rhetoric was that atomic weapons would end everything (and therefore should not be used). The actual geophysical study of nuclear winter was filled with papers that came from one camp or another which made getting to any "actual well modelled projections" difficult. With hindsight, the case for nuclear winter seems extremely over stated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter has varied a bit over the decades, I've not read it recently, it sketches out the evolution of the idea and support | counter arguments. > Civilization as we know it, yes. Humanity, no. As the northern hemisphere knows it, very likely.
- j-pb 3y ago
  The fact that you think that the innefficiencies of meat production make any kind of sense in this scenario, make it clear that you haven't thought this through at all. Any post-apocalyptic bunker dwellers would be 100% vegan.
- Someone 3y ago
  > Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely If properly operated and maintained. Maintenance requires lots of knowledge. The reactor itself is simple, but the stuff to turn heat into electricity typically isn’t, involving the use of steam under high pressure, liquid sodium, or other dangerous and/or corrosive stuff. The supply chain for parts and tools to maintain that goes deep. It would not surprise me if it would require millions of people to keep one running safely for decades.
amenhotep 3y ago
It's an element of deterrence. If you and your enemy are rattling your nukes at each other, and you know for a fact that their command and control apparatus is going to be concentrated in a particular bunker, you might be tempted to see if you can strike that bunker and "win" the exchange with a decapitation strike. Conversely if you know that as soon as the nukes started rattling they launched a plane that can coordinate responses to whatever you do no matter how many bombs you drop on their country, then you will need to destroy all of their forces comprehensively and your path to "victory" looks much worse.
- boppo1 3y ago
  Huh, so as a civilian, the existence of the doomsday plane lowers my chance of survival because the opposition might bomb the country more, i.e. increase the likelihood my area gets hit?
  - amenhotep 3y ago
    Well, if you take an enemy nuclear strike as given, then yes, I guess it does? But the general consensus is that nuclear bombs hitting your country at all is bad and most strategists try and optimise to avoid it happening altogether, rather than assume it's going to happen and try to make it less unpleasant. It's fairly clear that the optimal thing to do once your enemy has launched a single nuke at you is surrender unconditionally rather than retaliate, but we would probably not prefer to live in a world where launching nukes was seen as a good way to win a negotiation, so we try our best to discourage it.
Ekaros 3y ago
In sense it is suicide mission. To stay up as long as possible and control the war to bitter end...

coin 3y ago

> What do the occupants do? I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens, at the bottom shafts of some of our deepest mines. It would not be difficult. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the suitable minesites in the country, but I shouldn't be surprised if several hundred thousand of our people could be accommodated. Every nation would undoubtedly follow suit.

ojosilva 3y ago
I'm just watching Fallout on Amazon Prime TV. I had no previous knowledge about the (video game?) franchise, but what you describe is part of the shows' premise. At one point a character makes a point that these "vaults" are a refuge of a elite, the rich and connected, and does not represent the real world that exists on the face of the Earth.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 3y ago
  I believe they're quoting Doctor strange love, the film
- salad-tycoon 3y ago
  Silo Saga book series is also on Apple TV and similar premise. Also the audible of the series is pretty good.
kyboren 3y ago
And before you ask "who decides who goes up and who goes down?", that would not be necessary. It could easily be accomplished by a computer, and the computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time and little to do. But with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, 10 females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within, say, 20 years.
- coin 3y ago
  Wouldn't that necessitate abandoning the so-called monogamous form of sexual relationship?
thegrim33 3y ago
Where does this pervasive notion that once the bombs drop humanity is completely wiped out come from? Any official literature on the topic, even the most pessimistic takes, don't come anywhere close to proposing this. There's absolutely no study produced by any country that says that only people in the most extreme situations (like huddled in the bottom of a deepest mine) would survive. The outside radiation levels from a full-scale nuclear exchange would return to 99% of normal levels within something like only 3 weeks. Yes there would be nuclear winter to contend with, although different sources conflict with each other about how significant the nuclear winter would be, and yes, lots of people would surely die and develop cancer in the aftermath, I'm not denying that, but humans would have absolutely no issue going on and surviving. There's no chance that full nuclear exchange ends humanity. Civilization as we know it, yes. Humanity, no.
- defrost 3y ago
  > Where does this pervasive notion that once the bombs drop humanity is completely wiped out come from? Multiple sides of the Cold War narrative. MAD == Mutual destruction and there's not much of a deterrent to "if the switch trips everybody dies" if that case in't made. On the RAND Corp side (playing game theory and advanced game theory) there were think tanks pushing "the only way to win is to not wage war" as broadly across the world as possible, and bolstering nuclear winter when it arose even if there were real doubts about that being the case. On the Peacenik side (Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell et al) the story of minor accidents and misunderstandings leading to global destruction was a valuable part of selling disarmament .. it's dangewrous and must be rolled back. The only solid voice at the time against nuclear winter etc. were the supporters (East and West) of tactical nuclear weapons who believed in the use of small "battlefield nukes". During the height of the Cold War the main rhetoric was that atomic weapons would end everything (and therefore should not be used). The actual geophysical study of nuclear winter was filled with papers that came from one camp or another which made getting to any "actual well modelled projections" difficult. With hindsight, the case for nuclear winter seems extremely over stated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter has varied a bit over the decades, I've not read it recently, it sketches out the evolution of the idea and support | counter arguments. > Civilization as we know it, yes. Humanity, no. As the northern hemisphere knows it, very likely.
j-pb 3y ago
The fact that you think that the innefficiencies of meat production make any kind of sense in this scenario, make it clear that you haven't thought this through at all. Any post-apocalyptic bunker dwellers would be 100% vegan.
Someone 3y ago
> Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely If properly operated and maintained. Maintenance requires lots of knowledge. The reactor itself is simple, but the stuff to turn heat into electricity typically isn’t, involving the use of steam under high pressure, liquid sodium, or other dangerous and/or corrosive stuff. The supply chain for parts and tools to maintain that goes deep. It would not surprise me if it would require millions of people to keep one running safely for decades.

amenhotep 3y ago

It's an element of deterrence. If you and your enemy are rattling your nukes at each other, and you know for a fact that their command and control apparatus is going to be concentrated in a particular bunker, you might be tempted to see if you can strike that bunker and "win" the exchange with a decapitation strike. Conversely if you know that as soon as the nukes started rattling they launched a plane that can coordinate responses to whatever you do no matter how many bombs you drop on their country, then you will need to destroy all of their forces comprehensively and your path to "victory" looks much worse.

boppo1 3y ago
Huh, so as a civilian, the existence of the doomsday plane lowers my chance of survival because the opposition might bomb the country more, i.e. increase the likelihood my area gets hit?
- amenhotep 3y ago
  Well, if you take an enemy nuclear strike as given, then yes, I guess it does? But the general consensus is that nuclear bombs hitting your country at all is bad and most strategists try and optimise to avoid it happening altogether, rather than assume it's going to happen and try to make it less unpleasant. It's fairly clear that the optimal thing to do once your enemy has launched a single nuke at you is surrender unconditionally rather than retaliate, but we would probably not prefer to live in a world where launching nukes was seen as a good way to win a negotiation, so we try our best to discourage it.

Ekaros 3y ago

In sense it is suicide mission. To stay up as long as possible and control the war to bitter end...