7 ms·

1) Don't worry about it. If one goes off over a NATO country or Russia/China, you'll soon have much, much bigger problems to worry about. 2) There is no 2)

diggan 1y ago
I mean, the article is about the EMP wave following a nuclear detonation, I'm not sure there are bigger problems after that, we're already pretty deep into "shit has hit the fan" at that point. From the first paragraph: > maybe it's time to look at the damaging effects of the electromagnetic pulse that follows a nuclear detonation.
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  > I mean, the article is about the EMP wave following a nuclear detonation, I'm not sure there are bigger problems after that, we're already pretty deep into "shit has hit the fan" at that point. Sure we are in deep trouble, but at that point, but I disagree with your “not sure there are bigger problems after that”: the following problem would be a nuke exploding in your direct vicinity (instead of in high altitude/space where it caused an EMP).
muzani 1y ago
But I don't live in any of those places. Also I believe India-Pakistan has nukes too. And possibly Israel-Iran. North Korea too? The peace loving nations are well within fallout range. My biggest fear with MAD is that it only takes a single irrational leader, and we've seen so many of them lately.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  I don't want to jinx it, but even the most deranged leaders don't want to rule over a nuclear wasteland. And they especially don't want to go down in their history as the worst person who ruined everything for their party.
  - themadturk 1y ago
    No, but some might have a "take the world down with me" attitude.
    - um1 1y ago
      Netanyahu?
      - themadturk 1y ago
        Putin himself. If it looks like Russia is going to lose, he has expressed an attitude of "If I lose, so do you."
yabones 1y ago
Yeah, what I've learned from films like "Threads" and "The Day After" is that you very much want to die in the first 20ms of a nuclear war. Don't dig a hole to hide in, put your lawn chair on the roof and hope you're close enough to ground zero to get a peaceful and dignified end.
- Gud 1y ago
  Fuck that. I’m going to resist dying. I am going to keep those around me, alive.
  - jamespo 1y ago
    for a few minutes / hours I guess
    - XorNot 1y ago
      Outside of acute radiation poisoning and blast damage, it's still a big planet. The real problem is what happens over the next 3 to 12 months, since global trade and agriculture would fall apart. Most projections of casualties from nuclear war have much higher fatalities from famine then bombardment.
  - BuyMyBitcoins 1y ago
    Surviving will be a miserable ordeal. That being said, all of my ancestors have survived every major calamity in the history of life on earth. The way I see it, I owe it to them to try surviving whatever comes next. A few select generations lived through much, much worse. It may sound bizarre, but I don’t believe in an afterlife so I might as well lean into something to give me inspiration. The idea that I exist because my extremely distant ancestors survived every mass extinction gives me a sense of wonder.
    - leptons 1y ago
      >Surviving will be a miserable ordeal Life is already a miserable ordeal for far too many people.
spacebanana7 1y ago
Not all uses of nuclear weapons necessarily escalate to the doomsday maximum exchange scenarios. There are many interesting points of equilibrium in between. For example - if far right extremists took over Turkey and attacked Russia, then Russia nuked a Turkish airbase, what would the US/UK/France do? It's not actually that obvious.
- BuyMyBitcoins 1y ago
  You’re going to see the most strongly worded letter in the history of human civilization.
- rjsw 1y ago
  Turkey is a member of NATO.
  - spacebanana7 1y ago
    That’s the point. In theory Turkey is covered by the NATO nuclear umbrella. But in practice how many Americans would be willing to go nuclear in support of a Turkish war against the Russians? In circumstances where Turkey was considered the aggressor state.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > But in practice how many Americans would be willing to go nuclear in support of a Turkish war against the Russians? In circumstances where Turkey was considered the aggressor state. The question is how many would be willing to go nuclear in response to Russia nuking US forces in Türkiye in response to a conventional attack by Türkiye, which any plausible "Russia nukes Türkiye" scenario would involve.
      - spacebanana7 1y ago
        It’s not obvious how many casualties the US itself would tolerate before going nuclear. In circumstances where there were only a couple thousand American casualties, and those were incurred as collateral damage rather than as primary targets, it might make sense for the US to respond with conventional airstrikes and for Russia accept those and not escalate further. This would depend a lot on the individual president though, like I could imagine Trump/Obama being much more risk averse than personalities like Bush 2 or JFK.
jnurmine 1y ago
I agree about not worrying about it, but one should be aware -- awareness about something is not equal to worrying about something. Awareness of something is the first step in adapting. One can adapt beforehand, or, one can adapt afterwards; with more limited resources, necessitated by circumstances, under more time pressure, with more suboptimal tools, and so on. It is unquestionable that an EMP would have an extreme impact in all aspects of society and the lives of people. Preparations on macro and micro level can mitigate some of the problems that would follow. And preparations require awareness.
nonelog 1y ago
> If one goes off over a NATO country or Russia/China The current threat is actually for New York. The information comes from this session: https://rumble.com/v6sm22l-marina-jacobi-near-new-york-90-probability-prediction-s8-e17.html https://rumble.com/v6sm22l-marina-jacobi-near-new-york-90-pr...

diggan 1y ago

I mean, the article is about the EMP wave following a nuclear detonation, I'm not sure there are bigger problems after that, we're already pretty deep into "shit has hit the fan" at that point. From the first paragraph: > maybe it's time to look at the damaging effects of the electromagnetic pulse that follows a nuclear detonation.

littlestymaar 1y ago
> I mean, the article is about the EMP wave following a nuclear detonation, I'm not sure there are bigger problems after that, we're already pretty deep into "shit has hit the fan" at that point. Sure we are in deep trouble, but at that point, but I disagree with your “not sure there are bigger problems after that”: the following problem would be a nuke exploding in your direct vicinity (instead of in high altitude/space where it caused an EMP).

muzani 1y ago

But I don't live in any of those places. Also I believe India-Pakistan has nukes too. And possibly Israel-Iran. North Korea too? The peace loving nations are well within fallout range. My biggest fear with MAD is that it only takes a single irrational leader, and we've seen so many of them lately.

Workaccount2 1y ago
I don't want to jinx it, but even the most deranged leaders don't want to rule over a nuclear wasteland. And they especially don't want to go down in their history as the worst person who ruined everything for their party.
- themadturk 1y ago
  No, but some might have a "take the world down with me" attitude.
  - um1 1y ago
    Netanyahu?
    - themadturk 1y ago
      Putin himself. If it looks like Russia is going to lose, he has expressed an attitude of "If I lose, so do you."

yabones 1y ago

Yeah, what I've learned from films like "Threads" and "The Day After" is that you very much want to die in the first 20ms of a nuclear war. Don't dig a hole to hide in, put your lawn chair on the roof and hope you're close enough to ground zero to get a peaceful and dignified end.

Gud 1y ago
Fuck that. I’m going to resist dying. I am going to keep those around me, alive.
- jamespo 1y ago
  for a few minutes / hours I guess
  - XorNot 1y ago
    Outside of acute radiation poisoning and blast damage, it's still a big planet. The real problem is what happens over the next 3 to 12 months, since global trade and agriculture would fall apart. Most projections of casualties from nuclear war have much higher fatalities from famine then bombardment.
- BuyMyBitcoins 1y ago
  Surviving will be a miserable ordeal. That being said, all of my ancestors have survived every major calamity in the history of life on earth. The way I see it, I owe it to them to try surviving whatever comes next. A few select generations lived through much, much worse. It may sound bizarre, but I don’t believe in an afterlife so I might as well lean into something to give me inspiration. The idea that I exist because my extremely distant ancestors survived every mass extinction gives me a sense of wonder.
  - leptons 1y ago
    >Surviving will be a miserable ordeal Life is already a miserable ordeal for far too many people.

spacebanana7 1y ago

Not all uses of nuclear weapons necessarily escalate to the doomsday maximum exchange scenarios. There are many interesting points of equilibrium in between. For example - if far right extremists took over Turkey and attacked Russia, then Russia nuked a Turkish airbase, what would the US/UK/France do? It's not actually that obvious.

BuyMyBitcoins 1y ago
You’re going to see the most strongly worded letter in the history of human civilization.
rjsw 1y ago
Turkey is a member of NATO.
- spacebanana7 1y ago
  That’s the point. In theory Turkey is covered by the NATO nuclear umbrella. But in practice how many Americans would be willing to go nuclear in support of a Turkish war against the Russians? In circumstances where Turkey was considered the aggressor state.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > But in practice how many Americans would be willing to go nuclear in support of a Turkish war against the Russians? In circumstances where Turkey was considered the aggressor state. The question is how many would be willing to go nuclear in response to Russia nuking US forces in Türkiye in response to a conventional attack by Türkiye, which any plausible "Russia nukes Türkiye" scenario would involve.
    - spacebanana7 1y ago
      It’s not obvious how many casualties the US itself would tolerate before going nuclear. In circumstances where there were only a couple thousand American casualties, and those were incurred as collateral damage rather than as primary targets, it might make sense for the US to respond with conventional airstrikes and for Russia accept those and not escalate further. This would depend a lot on the individual president though, like I could imagine Trump/Obama being much more risk averse than personalities like Bush 2 or JFK.

jnurmine 1y ago

I agree about not worrying about it, but one should be aware -- awareness about something is not equal to worrying about something. Awareness of something is the first step in adapting. One can adapt beforehand, or, one can adapt afterwards; with more limited resources, necessitated by circumstances, under more time pressure, with more suboptimal tools, and so on. It is unquestionable that an EMP would have an extreme impact in all aspects of society and the lives of people. Preparations on macro and micro level can mitigate some of the problems that would follow. And preparations require awareness.

nonelog 1y ago

> If one goes off over a NATO country or Russia/China The current threat is actually for New York. The information comes from this session: https://rumble.com/v6sm22l-marina-jacobi-near-new-york-90-probability-prediction-s8-e17.html https://rumble.com/v6sm22l-marina-jacobi-near-new-york-90-pr...