Who's "we", you and your nuclear arsenal...? Just sayin', let us know in advance so we can try to reach a place slightly less affected by the nuclear winter (sub-Saharan Africa? Patagonia? Who knows).
Most posts on HN about nuclear war are so comically exaggerated as to merit no serious treatment what-so-ever.
During the post WW2 era a persistent effort has been made to intentionally artificially increase the scare factor of nuclear weapons in hopes that they'll never be used, by exaggerating the end of the world potential.
You could hit Texas with all of Russia's nukes simultaneously and you'd still fail to kill everyone in that state. If you perfectly deployed all of Russia's nukes against population centers in the US, you'd struggle to kill half the population in that one country. The US and Russia set off ~1750 nuclear weapons in less than 50 years and the world barely blinked. If there were an exchange of several thousand nuclear weapons between the US and Russia (highly unlikely even in a nuclear war), the world would keep marching on, despite the vast destruction in several nations. There would be no nuclear winter at all, not even remotely close.
I don't disagree with the use of exaggeration tactics to keep nations from utilizing nuclear weapons. Maybe it's an effective tool. There's no sense in being scientifically ignorant on a forum like this one however, nobody here is deciding nuclear policy for Russia and the US, this forum isn't going to shape world opinion on nuclear weapons. There is zero potential for global nuclear winter from the world's present number of nuclear weapons.
If Russia is willing to use nukes over Ukraine, what makes you think it won't end in nukes any how? There is no way Ukraine is the stopping point if they are willing to use nukes to secure Ukraine.
Even if we take your position at face value (which most would, it’s not controversial) that doesn’t invalidate GP’s statement. It just asserts that it’s the general case which applies to all geopolitical power dynamics.
“They” won’t stop unless someone stops them. That seems like a reasonable assertion whether you’re Ukraine or Yemen.
toyg|4 years ago
adventured|4 years ago
Most posts on HN about nuclear war are so comically exaggerated as to merit no serious treatment what-so-ever.
During the post WW2 era a persistent effort has been made to intentionally artificially increase the scare factor of nuclear weapons in hopes that they'll never be used, by exaggerating the end of the world potential.
You could hit Texas with all of Russia's nukes simultaneously and you'd still fail to kill everyone in that state. If you perfectly deployed all of Russia's nukes against population centers in the US, you'd struggle to kill half the population in that one country. The US and Russia set off ~1750 nuclear weapons in less than 50 years and the world barely blinked. If there were an exchange of several thousand nuclear weapons between the US and Russia (highly unlikely even in a nuclear war), the world would keep marching on, despite the vast destruction in several nations. There would be no nuclear winter at all, not even remotely close.
I don't disagree with the use of exaggeration tactics to keep nations from utilizing nuclear weapons. Maybe it's an effective tool. There's no sense in being scientifically ignorant on a forum like this one however, nobody here is deciding nuclear policy for Russia and the US, this forum isn't going to shape world opinion on nuclear weapons. There is zero potential for global nuclear winter from the world's present number of nuclear weapons.
meragrin|4 years ago
wiz21c|4 years ago
[deleted]
runnerup|4 years ago
“They” won’t stop unless someone stops them. That seems like a reasonable assertion whether you’re Ukraine or Yemen.