3 ms·

Like, a case of a potential war with Russia or China? Good luck using diesel when all of it will be prioritised for the military. Also, no one would care if i

Like, a case of a potential war with Russia or China? Good luck using diesel when all of it will be prioritised for the military. Also, no one would care if it's green or not in case of a full-scale war. Your only priority would be to kill as many Russians as possible to survive.

hnbad 2y ago
> Also, no one would care if it's green or not in case of a full-scale war. If you're a nuclear country in a full-scale war with Russia or China, you are dead. Your family is dead. Your friends are dead. Everyone you know or love or hate is dead. Everyone who isn't dead is dying or going to die. Those who survive will be holed up in bunkers built with the expectancy that the population will naturally thin out (i.e. die off) to make the scarce supplies last or they will be on the surface facing starvation if they don't die from disease, weather or lack of access to potable water first. I don't know at which point after the Cold War people forgot what "mutually assured destruction" means but as soon as you fire the first nuclear weapon, humanity ends. And it doesn't matter if the weapon is nuclear or not because most weapons systems that can deliver nuclear payloads can also deliver conventional payloads and all that matters is what your enemy thinks you're doing. This kind of rhetoric: > Your only priority would be to kill as many Russians as possible to survive. This will make your enemy err on the side of you intending nuclear annihilation and respond in kind. The only reason we haven't killed ourselves yet is that a couple of times some level-headed soldiers weren't myopic enough to fall for their country's nationalist fervor and instead refused to follow the orders they were given. If the US enters a full-scale war with Russia or China or any other serious nuclear threat, the bombs will fall before you have to worry about FEMA camps or the US national guard knocking on your barn door to confiscate your rusty diesel barrels.
- pjc50 2y ago
  And people keep promoting nuclear "everywhere" without asking the question of what that means for countries that aren't the US or the small number of existing nuclear powers. Proliferation. Are people really going to argue that the best energy production scheme for Brazil is 80,000 1MW nuclear reactors? Are they all going to be secured?
- batushka5 2y ago
  [dead]
- cynicalsecurity 2y ago
  So, you are going to immediately surrender? This is not how a war between US and Russia/China will unfold. It will start and proceed as a regular war.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    Neither side will use the nukes? Are you sure? Really, really, bet your life sure? (It's possible that there will be an "irregular" war where one or both sides are not officially flagged as such, but that's also going to be lower intensity. Arguably Ukraine is already in this state)
  - hnbad 2y ago
    No, you do what Iran (a potential nuclear power) did when Israel (a known nuclear power) committed an explicit act of war by bombing its consulate and killing some of its top brass: you respond with an appropriately measured but ultimately symbolic counter-attack and hope the other side understands that this is an opportunity to likewise exercise caution in its counter-counter-attack. Or you do what the US and Soviet Union did for most of the Cold War: a cold war involving proxies. Or you do what Russia did in Ukraine and the US did in Syria: covert operations with (diplomatically speaking) plausible deniability. A "war between US and Russia/China" would not start with a full-scale armed conflict. It would be a gradual escalation of force. Contrary to what cold war propaganda may have conveyed: the other side is rarely suicidal. At that scale it's more Realpolitik than 1980s Hollywood villain plots.
krisoft 2y ago
> Your only priority would be to kill as many Russians as possible to survive. How would killing anyone (Russians or Chinese or whatever) would help you survive? A boots-on-the-ground invasion of the USA is absolutely not a realistic prospect. In case a war goes hot ICBMs is the thing you should worry about. Honestly I just don't understand what you imagine might happen where "kill as many Russians as possible" is the path to survival for someone residing in the USA.
- cynicalsecurity 2y ago
  Because I don't want the West to fail? You must be ready to protect yourself. Calling nuclear reactors environmentally unfriendly is pure insanity. It's a suicide in a situation when your enemies are actively plotting plans on how to kill you. You can't be naive. Ukrainians already made this mistake.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    > Calling nuclear reactors environmentally unfriendly is pure insanity The risk is real. You may argue about its priority, but that doesn't change the reality. > Ukrainians Worst possible example, given the existing disaster exclusion zone in their country, and everyone watching nervously as shells fall around the Zaprozhia nuclear plant.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

hnbad 2y ago

> Also, no one would care if it's green or not in case of a full-scale war. If you're a nuclear country in a full-scale war with Russia or China, you are dead. Your family is dead. Your friends are dead. Everyone you know or love or hate is dead. Everyone who isn't dead is dying or going to die. Those who survive will be holed up in bunkers built with the expectancy that the population will naturally thin out (i.e. die off) to make the scarce supplies last or they will be on the surface facing starvation if they don't die from disease, weather or lack of access to potable water first. I don't know at which point after the Cold War people forgot what "mutually assured destruction" means but as soon as you fire the first nuclear weapon, humanity ends. And it doesn't matter if the weapon is nuclear or not because most weapons systems that can deliver nuclear payloads can also deliver conventional payloads and all that matters is what your enemy thinks you're doing. This kind of rhetoric: > Your only priority would be to kill as many Russians as possible to survive. This will make your enemy err on the side of you intending nuclear annihilation and respond in kind. The only reason we haven't killed ourselves yet is that a couple of times some level-headed soldiers weren't myopic enough to fall for their country's nationalist fervor and instead refused to follow the orders they were given. If the US enters a full-scale war with Russia or China or any other serious nuclear threat, the bombs will fall before you have to worry about FEMA camps or the US national guard knocking on your barn door to confiscate your rusty diesel barrels.

pjc50 2y ago
And people keep promoting nuclear "everywhere" without asking the question of what that means for countries that aren't the US or the small number of existing nuclear powers. Proliferation. Are people really going to argue that the best energy production scheme for Brazil is 80,000 1MW nuclear reactors? Are they all going to be secured?
batushka5 2y ago
[dead]
cynicalsecurity 2y ago
So, you are going to immediately surrender? This is not how a war between US and Russia/China will unfold. It will start and proceed as a regular war.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Neither side will use the nukes? Are you sure? Really, really, bet your life sure? (It's possible that there will be an "irregular" war where one or both sides are not officially flagged as such, but that's also going to be lower intensity. Arguably Ukraine is already in this state)
- hnbad 2y ago
  No, you do what Iran (a potential nuclear power) did when Israel (a known nuclear power) committed an explicit act of war by bombing its consulate and killing some of its top brass: you respond with an appropriately measured but ultimately symbolic counter-attack and hope the other side understands that this is an opportunity to likewise exercise caution in its counter-counter-attack. Or you do what the US and Soviet Union did for most of the Cold War: a cold war involving proxies. Or you do what Russia did in Ukraine and the US did in Syria: covert operations with (diplomatically speaking) plausible deniability. A "war between US and Russia/China" would not start with a full-scale armed conflict. It would be a gradual escalation of force. Contrary to what cold war propaganda may have conveyed: the other side is rarely suicidal. At that scale it's more Realpolitik than 1980s Hollywood villain plots.

krisoft 2y ago

> Your only priority would be to kill as many Russians as possible to survive. How would killing anyone (Russians or Chinese or whatever) would help you survive? A boots-on-the-ground invasion of the USA is absolutely not a realistic prospect. In case a war goes hot ICBMs is the thing you should worry about. Honestly I just don't understand what you imagine might happen where "kill as many Russians as possible" is the path to survival for someone residing in the USA.

cynicalsecurity 2y ago
Because I don't want the West to fail? You must be ready to protect yourself. Calling nuclear reactors environmentally unfriendly is pure insanity. It's a suicide in a situation when your enemies are actively plotting plans on how to kill you. You can't be naive. Ukrainians already made this mistake.
- pjc50 2y ago
  > Calling nuclear reactors environmentally unfriendly is pure insanity The risk is real. You may argue about its priority, but that doesn't change the reality. > Ukrainians Worst possible example, given the existing disaster exclusion zone in their country, and everyone watching nervously as shells fall around the Zaprozhia nuclear plant.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]