3 ms·
The risks of nuclear weapons aren't theoretical. Nuclear weapons have killed people, destroyed infrastructure, and contaminated the environment. The Limited Tes
by ytoawwhra92 25d ago
The risks of nuclear weapons aren't theoretical. Nuclear weapons have killed people, destroyed infrastructure, and contaminated the environment. The Limited Test Ban Treaty was put in place after radioactive fallout from repeated nuclear weapons tests made people sick.
So in fact we've done exactly what you suggest there's "no point" doing - used the things and then had a discussion after the fact about limiting future use of them.
- mitthrowaway2 25d agoFWIW, before any nuclear weapons had ever been tested, a risk was identified that the first one might trigger a self-sustaining reaction in atmospheric nitrogen and destroy the entire planet. Faced with such a scenario, is the prudent next move: a) blow one up and see what happens, or b) do whatever you can to be sure it won't happen before conducting the first test, and make sure the confidence in the calculation is very very high because I vote for b, and so did Teller.
- ozozozd 25d ago“Self-sustaining reaction,” like the recursive self improvement? Or perpetual machines? Is physics no longer a main subject at schools?
- debugnik 25d agoI assume the fear was an uninterrupted burn until the gas depletes, as in the Darvaza gas crater but atmosphere-wide.
- angoragoats 25d agoA self-sustaining reaction is exactly what happens with the fissionable material inside the nuclear weapon[0]. It seems like you’re trying to be pedantic on terminology here, but if you’re saying that a self-sustaining reaction is as un-scientific as a perpetual motion machine, you’re simply incorrect. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_(status) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_(status)
- mitthrowaway2 25d agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction
- TheCoelacanth 24d agoI'm pretty sure they didn't think the reaction would be perpetual; just long-lasting enough to wipe out life on Earth.
- igleria 25d agoIt's funny that when faced with a weapon that could finish the war, option b was still selected (thanks Teller). But the people faced with decisions close to IPO, well, we know what is happening.
- wallst07 25d agoGood point, humanity chose a and the sky in fact did NOT ignite an destroy the planet. The hypothesis was very very far off from what I recall. But it's good we talked about it.
- mitthrowaway2 25d agoIncorrect, they did the calculation first. They decided not to proceed with the test until they were 99.9997% sure the atmosphere wouldn't catch fire.
- dinfinity 25d ago> The risks of nuclear weapons aren't theoretical The logic for the first bits of handwaving still applies: "I haven't seen any evidence of thermonuclear war happening, so it is unlikely to ever happen. The only time nukes were ever used outside of research was 80 years ago; the whole world recoiled, decided that they were way too dangerous and never used them again. Clearly they are not a real risk."