If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS4Denver - KCNC)   Study shows that even a small nuclear war could destroy the world. No word on tiny nuclear war or infinitesimal thermonuclear exchange   (denver.cbslocal.com) divider line 271
    More: Obvious, tags, Atmospheric Research  
•       •       •

6478 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Mar 2014 at 9:58 AM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



271 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-28 08:24:46 AM  
Is this a nuclear war for ANTS?!??!?
 
2014-03-28 08:44:41 AM  
Finally, a solution to global warming presents itself.
 
2014-03-28 08:48:27 AM  
Even Hong Kong Variant? SEATO Decapitating? Cuban Provocation? Inadvertent? Atlantic Heavy? Cuban Paramilitary? Nicaraguan Pre-emptive? Pacific Territorial? Burmese Theaterwide? Turkish Decoy? Argentina Escalation? Iceland Maximum? Arabian Theaterwide? U.S. Subversion? Australian Maneuver? Sudan Surprise? NATO Territorial? Zaire Alliance? Iceland Incident? English Escalation? Zaire Screen? Middle East Heavy? Mexican Takeover? Chad Alert? Saudi Maneuver? African Territorial? Ethiopian Calamity? Turkish Heavy? NATO Incursion? U.S. Defense? Cambodian Heavy? Arctic Minimal? Mexican Domestic? Taiwanese Theaterwide? Pacific Maneuver? Portugal Revolution? Albanian Decoy? Palestinian Local? Moroccan Minimal? Czech Option? French Alliance? Arabian Clandestine? Gabon Rebellion?
 
2014-03-28 08:49:36 AM  
There are nuclear wars that could be contained, but they all involve third-rate powers and require the big boys to stay calm and work in concert to stop it.

For example, if Best Korea decided to listen to Dear Leader III and go south, and decided their best chance at not being instantly defeated was to nuke Seoul, blast a nuclear hole through the DMZ, and maybe to lob one or two at Japan just for good measure, it could be contained. But it would require the US, China, and Russia to act in concert, and they would have to do it instantly.

Ditto if Pakistan did something really, really stupid where India is concerned. If the whole world instantly backed India and convinced them to pull an Israel in 1991, it would stop there. But I certainly wouldn't want to gamble on it stopping there.

The scary thing about the end of the Cold War and the fall of the USSR is that, in 20-30 years, we're all going to be governed and led by people who know little about nukes, have never really lived in fear of them, and might be tempted to think they can safely use them. It's a terrifying thought.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-28 08:51:10 AM  
There's only one way to be sure. Have 1,000 small nuclear wars. If the world is not destroyed, you have on the order of 99.9% confidence that a small nuclear war will not destroy the world.
 
2014-03-28 08:58:53 AM  
I have become death. Destroyer of worlds...tiny, tiny worlds.
 
2014-03-28 08:59:22 AM  
I still remember my duck and cover training. I'll be OK.
 
2014-03-28 09:01:35 AM  

rumpelstiltskin: I still remember my duck and cover training. I'll be OK.


Why a duck? Why a no chicken?
 
2014-03-28 09:02:36 AM  
You can play the game too

img.fark.net

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
 
2014-03-28 09:05:20 AM  
Haven't we set off hundreds of nukes since the 1945, as part of weapons testing?  For a while, everyone that could build them was setting them off like firecrackers.
 
2014-03-28 09:13:28 AM  
technically it's a nuclear peacekeeping operation.
 
2014-03-28 09:13:52 AM  

Sybarite: Even Hong Kong Variant? SEATO Decapitating? Cuban Provocation? Inadvertent? Atlantic Heavy? Cuban Paramilitary? Nicaraguan Pre-emptive? Pacific Territorial? Burmese Theaterwide? Turkish Decoy? Argentina Escalation? Iceland Maximum? Arabian Theaterwide? U.S. Subversion? Australian Maneuver? Sudan Surprise? NATO Territorial? Zaire Alliance? Iceland Incident? English Escalation? Zaire Screen? Middle East Heavy? Mexican Takeover? Chad Alert? Saudi Maneuver? African Territorial? Ethiopian Calamity? Turkish Heavy? NATO Incursion? U.S. Defense? Cambodian Heavy? Arctic Minimal? Mexican Domestic? Taiwanese Theaterwide? Pacific Maneuver? Portugal Revolution? Albanian Decoy? Palestinian Local? Moroccan Minimal? Czech Option? French Alliance? Arabian Clandestine? Gabon Rebellion?


This completely derailed anything I was going to say. Well done.
 
2014-03-28 09:15:15 AM  
For anyone interested in reading the 43 page report the article refers to, here it is.

USA v. Russia will likely not be a regional conflict, despite what Obama says about Russia being a regional power.
 
2014-03-28 09:30:53 AM  

make me some tea: Finally, a solution to global warming presents itself.


When I worked for the Navy, we had an analyst who we all pretty much referred to as our own little Dr. Strangelove, and he basically said the same thing. "What causes global warming? High population and industrial centers. What does nuclear war get rid of? High population and industrial centers. Problem solved."
 
2014-03-28 09:37:17 AM  

devildog123: Haven't we set off hundreds of nukes since the 1945, as part of weapons testing?  For a while, everyone that could build them was setting them off like firecrackers.


Thousands.

Now, I haven't read this study yet, and maybe I'll get around to it, maybe not. But previous studies worked off some fundamentally questionable assumptions, such as calculating how much ash you get from low, smoldering fires that produce lots of ash, and then using those numbers combined with what proportion of ash gets into the upper-atmosphere in a raging inferno. There's a contradiction there. In addition, the calculations assumed all nuked areas have the same density of combustibles as the heavy forests of rural Russia/U.S. It'd be interesting to see if these guys are just working the same fundamentals or corrected those assumptions to something more reasonable.

On the other hand, we're not actually all that certain as to what that kind of war looks like. We dropped two really small weapons on two relatively small (compared to today) cities. That's little enough data to be about as useful as anecdotes. So if you're trying to figure out the upper-bound of the problem, these are all perfectly fine assumptions, and the news that the upper-bound is worse than we thought isn't good.

But at the same time, things tend to be reported in the media in a more spectacular way than the science reports it.
 
2014-03-28 09:39:12 AM  

Prey4reign: For anyone interested in reading the 43 page report the article refers to, here it is.

USA v. Russia will likely not be a regional conflict, despite what Obama says about Russia being a regional power.


Russia IS a regional power. The ability to lob a nuke doesn't define one as a global power. If one wants to know why, ask why the US didn't just nuke Afghanistan. Then realize that the fall-back option was within the US' capabilities, but Russia doesn't have an equivalent. And there's your answer as to why Russia's not a world power.
 
2014-03-28 09:55:41 AM  
Weeners on story:

Carl Mertz • 6 minutes ago
Liberal bull-shiat,this is a set-up for Obama's bomb Tax.


img1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-03-28 09:55:43 AM  

devildog123: Haven't we set off hundreds of nukes since the 1945, as part of weapons testing?  For a while, everyone that could build them was setting them off like firecrackers.


We did a lot of ours in deserts, on isolated atolls surrounded by the Pacific, and underground.  All situations that minimize the production of radioactive ash and dust, and of course do so without interrupting global logistics and resource chains.  That wouldn't be the case in any nuclear war, because the weapons would be used on population centers with maximum impact, and thus environmental and societal disruption.
 
2014-03-28 09:55:58 AM  

vygramul: Prey4reign: For anyone interested in reading the 43 page report the article refers to, here it is.

USA v. Russia will likely not be a regional conflict, despite what Obama says about Russia being a regional power.

Russia IS a regional power. The ability to lob a nuke doesn't define one as a global power. If one wants to know why, ask why the US didn't just nuke Afghanistan. Then realize that the fall-back option was within the US' capabilities, but Russia doesn't have an equivalent. And there's your answer as to why Russia's not a world power.


Thus, if this thing spirals out of control and I find myself in the Philadelphia region with Washington and New York a nuclear wasteland and the rest of us left to recover from the odd ICBM strike and collateral damage, I can always take comfort from the fact that Russia IS a regional power.  Thanks for that.
 
2014-03-28 10:00:49 AM  
Destroy the world? No, destroy humanity as we know it, possible make the human race extinct. The earth, i.e. the world, is one tough biatch and will still be here if even we make this place uninhabitable for the human race.

You would have to cause the world itself to blow up, like that Death Star thingy did to those terrorists on Alderan.
 
2014-03-28 10:01:51 AM  
Alas, very, very tiny Babylon!
 
2014-03-28 10:01:53 AM  
Silly hipsters with their tiny homes and tiny nuclear wars.
 
2014-03-28 10:03:10 AM  

Prey4reign: vygramul: Prey4reign: For anyone interested in reading the 43 page report the article refers to, here it is.

USA v. Russia will likely not be a regional conflict, despite what Obama says about Russia being a regional power.

Russia IS a regional power. The ability to lob a nuke doesn't define one as a global power. If one wants to know why, ask why the US didn't just nuke Afghanistan. Then realize that the fall-back option was within the US' capabilities, but Russia doesn't have an equivalent. And there's your answer as to why Russia's not a world power.

Thus, if this thing spirals out of control and I find myself in the Philadelphia region with Washington and New York a nuclear wasteland and the rest of us left to recover from the odd ICBM strike and collateral damage, I can always take comfort from the fact that Russia IS a regional power.  Thanks for that.


So what you're saying is anyone who can put a nuke in a container and ship it to Philly is a world power?
 
2014-03-28 10:04:19 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Destroy the world? No, destroy humanity as we know it, possible make the human race extinct. The earth, i.e. the world, is one tough biatch and will still be here if even we make this place uninhabitable for the human race.

You would have to cause the world itself to blow up, like that Death Star thingy did to those terrorists on Alderan.


Hey, if you can accelerate a nuke to C and send it at the earth, you might be able to end it.

/And not because of the nuke
 
2014-03-28 10:04:51 AM  

devildog123: Haven't we set off hundreds of nukes since the 1945, as part of weapons testing?  For a while, everyone that could build them was setting them off like firecrackers.


A couple hundred nuked going off in the middle of nowhere spread out over a couple decades and carried out under controlled conditions is not the same thing as a couple hundred nukes going off on the same day in the middle of enormously flammable cities full of unknowable toxins and left more ore less uncontained because the emergency services people got melted.
 
2014-03-28 10:06:36 AM  
I'd hit it!

\\The button that is.
 
2014-03-28 10:07:05 AM  

vygramul: Prey4reign: vygramul: Prey4reign: For anyone interested in reading the 43 page report the article refers to, here it is.

USA v. Russia will likely not be a regional conflict, despite what Obama says about Russia being a regional power.

Russia IS a regional power. The ability to lob a nuke doesn't define one as a global power. If one wants to know why, ask why the US didn't just nuke Afghanistan. Then realize that the fall-back option was within the US' capabilities, but Russia doesn't have an equivalent. And there's your answer as to why Russia's not a world power.

Thus, if this thing spirals out of control and I find myself in the Philadelphia region with Washington and New York a nuclear wasteland and the rest of us left to recover from the odd ICBM strike and collateral damage, I can always take comfort from the fact that Russia IS a regional power.  Thanks for that.

So what you're saying is anyone who can put a nuke in a container and ship it to Philly is a world power?


No, what I'm saying is it's silly to quibble over words when the end result is so potentially devastating to mankind.  Bit of a difference from anyone shipping a nuke to a city and a nation that has the ability to rain down the nuclear shiatstorm on another nation.
 
2014-03-28 10:07:33 AM  

Ned Stark: A couple hundred nuked going off in the middle of nowhere spread out over a couple decades and carried out under controlled conditions


Nothing is controlled
There are nut jobs and losers out there with functioning nukes.
And that is just the USA military.
 
2014-03-28 10:07:59 AM  
It was somewhat difficult to make it all the way through that article with all the typos.
 
2014-03-28 10:09:56 AM  

InterruptingQuirk: You can play the game too

[img.fark.net image 850x494]

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/


Living in the Chicago area, I'm trying to see where there's a downside to this.
 
2014-03-28 10:10:38 AM  
What a good piece of ash may look like....seems harmless

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-28 10:11:13 AM  

vudukungfu: Ned Stark: A couple hundred nuked going off in the middle of nowhere spread out over a couple decades and carried out under controlled conditions

Nothing is controlled
There are nut jobs and losers out there with functioning nukes.
And that is just the USA military.


The test I mean, not the managment of nukes in general.


But we did get through the cold war without blowing everything up. Moderate evidence they mostly aren't nuts.
 
2014-03-28 10:12:46 AM  

Sybarite: Even Hong Kong Variant? SEATO Decapitating? Cuban Provocation? Inadvertent? Atlantic Heavy? Cuban Paramilitary? Nicaraguan Pre-emptive? Pacific Territorial? Burmese Theaterwide? Turkish Decoy? Argentina Escalation? Iceland Maximum? Arabian Theaterwide? U.S. Subversion? Australian Maneuver? Sudan Surprise? NATO Territorial? Zaire Alliance? Iceland Incident? English Escalation? Zaire Screen? Middle East Heavy? Mexican Takeover? Chad Alert? Saudi Maneuver? African Territorial? Ethiopian Calamity? Turkish Heavy? NATO Incursion? U.S. Defense? Cambodian Heavy? Arctic Minimal? Mexican Domestic? Taiwanese Theaterwide? Pacific Maneuver? Portugal Revolution? Albanian Decoy? Palestinian Local? Moroccan Minimal? Czech Option? French Alliance? Arabian Clandestine? Gabon Rebellion?


Would you like to play a game?

/you forgot one: Paltrow Conscious Uncoupling?
 
2014-03-28 10:12:59 AM  
I seem to recall a quote by Robert McNamara when the topic of Nuclear Weapons comes up.

"The conventional wisdom is don't make the same mistake twice, learn from your mistakes. ... There will be no learning period with nuclear weapons. You make one mistake and you're going to destroy nations."
 
2014-03-28 10:12:59 AM  
Get your kids ready for duck and cover drills. The US and Russia (and especially Russia) have decided that their economies were better and more stable during the cold war, so it's time to crank it back up again.
 
2014-03-28 10:14:40 AM  
www.itusozluk.com
 
2014-03-28 10:18:29 AM  
All I know is I live in a highly populated area near a city and less than 10 miles from the nearest airport. I'm pretty much f*cked.

I've looked at nuclear contingency plans for a 5MT and (god forbid) a 25MT bomb should it strike near me. The fireball radius would be pretty negligible (but perhaps the best option would to be vaporized) and the alpha and beta radiation won't do much and will be gone quickly.

The real problem is gamma radiation. Frankly speaking unless you have a full basement completely underground or have distance and favorable winds, you're probably f*cked.  Studies have shown almost anyone can build a dirt underground shelter capable of withstanding a nuclear attack with 3 days of intense labor, so if you know/think a nuke strike is imminent you can do that. Otherwise your best option is to find an underground cavern or tunnel or underground structure of some sort to wait out the gamma radiation. Pro tip: If you are inside your basement, build a makeshift tent structure out of packed dirt/sand that is 3 feet or more in height, and hide out under it for about two weeks days. Bring food and water and be prepared for a nightmare life. Probably beats radiation sickness though.

Good news if you're in your house - if you have a tank water heater, you can use that water. Chances are there won't be an electricity.

No, the real problem is supplies and defense of those supplies, most of all food. In a scorched earth scenario, I hope you have access to some hydroponic style equipment. You're going to be really busy the next few years.


/not that i've planned this out in any detail
//feel free to comment on the stupidity of any number of these thoughts, I find nuclear apocalypse survival guides more likely than zombie ones.
 
2014-03-28 10:18:43 AM  
There was this one time, some dude actually asked me, "Has there ever been a nuclear holocaust?"
"uh, you're not serious are you?"
"Yeah.  Has it ever happened?"
"Dude...  None of us would be here if it had."

Clearly, not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
 
2014-03-28 10:19:59 AM  
Not to down play the devastation, and unprecedented human suffering a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would cause, but:
Devastating damage =/= world destroyed.
World wide famine from moderate nuclear winter =/= world destroyed.
Dramatic increase in cancer rates from fallout =/= world destroyed.
Honestly, it probably wouldn't even destroy western civilization, though it may be a pretty bad decade.
Russia and the US going all in and firing thousands of nukes at each other, now that is a different story.
 
2014-03-28 10:20:02 AM  
... says research published in an open access, creative commons online?
 
2014-03-28 10:20:03 AM  
This just in from every day until the Soviet Union collapsed, when we lived with Doomsday, EVERY DAY.

It's like we forgot what nuclear Armageddon was like. Why did Adrian Veidt work so hard with such a crazy plan? For fun?
 
2014-03-28 10:21:52 AM  
I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed...
 
2014-03-28 10:22:08 AM  
This whole thing about the world ending if there is a nuclear war is such a letdown.  Nuclear war seemed so appealing before.
 
2014-03-28 10:22:15 AM  
We cannot allow a mine shaft gap.
 
2014-03-28 10:23:11 AM  
We need to get us one of them doomsday devices.
 
2014-03-28 10:23:19 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Destroy the world? No, destroy humanity as we know it, possible make the human race extinct. The earth, i.e. the world, is one tough biatch and will still be here if even we make this place uninhabitable for the human race.

You would have to cause the world itself to blow up, like that Death Star thingy did to those terrorists on Alderan.


Even the effects they note wouldn't quite end humanity. The reduced crop yields and ozone damage would knock civilization on its ass for a bit, and leave billions starving, but after the initial die off, humanity would adjust to the new normal minus a few billion people. It wouldn't be pretty, but it wouldn't be the end of humanity quite yet in the situation described.
 
2014-03-28 10:23:29 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-28 10:24:00 AM  
Subby, we already know what a limited use would result in because it already happened. The results after 50 years were used panty vending machines, neko mimi, and squid flavored ice cream. I do not recommend trying this again.
 
2014-03-28 10:24:05 AM  

BMFPitt: We cannot allow a mine shaft gap.


But enough about Subby's mom.
 
2014-03-28 10:24:30 AM  

Fano: This just in from every day until the Soviet Union collapsed, when we lived with Doomsday, EVERY DAY.

It's like we forgot what nuclear Armageddon was like. Why did Adrian Veidt work so hard with such a crazy plan? For fun?


The truth of the matter is that we never did live with doomsday everyday. Neither the US nor the USSR had any intention of going to war after the close call with the Cuban missile crisis. Both new that no nuclear exchange between the two would have any other outcome but mutual destruction. It would be pointless. But the posture was important. The two countries were like school boys comparing dick sizes. Actually we have been in more danger since the fall of the USSR, since Russia cannot afford to maintain and secure its nuclear arsenal as it should. They have a lot of weapons-grad uranium that they cannot account for.
 
Displayed 50 of 271 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report