3 ms·
I think it's a good idea to study the traditional notion that nuclear war is so extremely destructive. I love the word "traditional". As I was saying to my wif
by mechanical_fish 17y ago
I think it's a good idea to study the traditional notion that nuclear war is so extremely destructive.
I love the word "traditional". As I was saying to my wife the other day, on the occasion of the passing of Les Paul, "it's amazing how many of the inventors of our ancient and venerable traditions were still walking around as of last week."
In this case, the "traditional notion" that nuclear war could destroy all of life of earth dates back only to the 1960s, was by no means universally accepted, and still is not universally accepted. Nuclear survivability has, for obvious reasons, always been of intense interest to our political leaders, and I assure you that the subject is not an "intellectual wasteland": There are reams and reams of research on it. Much of it is classified, of course.
And talk of "what will happen after the nuclear war" used to be popular -- witness all those movies and bomb shelters and plans made during the 1950s and early 1960s, when people held the then-quite-reasonable belief that nuclear war was inevitable. But then the popular notion of global nuclear annhilation took hold -- probably because, like quite a few "traditional notions", it contains a big grain of truth. Perhaps it is hard to kill the whole world in a nuclear war. But it's not so hard to kill my whole world. I can give you a target list of eight cities, all of which contain major US research universities, which (if bombed) would destroy, say, 95% of all the people I've ever known. In a full-scale nuclear exchange involving the United States, odds are that my world would be destroyed. (I, personally, am incredibly likely to die in the initial blast wave, as I live down the street from the Route 128 tech corridor, home to companies like Raytheon.)
So maybe a person who lives in the New Guinea highlands really can afford to laugh at the prospect of the post-apocalypse. (May we never know.) But those of us who live in Boston, San Franci, New York, or Washington can't. Because, for us, bombing all four of those cities would be an apocalypse.
- fuzzmeister 17y agoIn a full-on nuclear exchange, it would be much more than major cities getting attacked. I live about 5 miles from Lincoln Labs and about 6 miles from Raytheon, so I'm screwed anyway. But, every ICBM installation, every port, and every military base would also be attacked in such a situation. I'd love to see some specific data on it, but I'd bet when you add those targets to the major cities, the vast, vast majority of the US population wouldn't fare too well.