Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Phys Org2)   This just in: Nuclear war would be very bad   (phys.org) divider line
    More: Obvious, Nuclear weapon, nuclear war, Nuclear proliferation, global study, much sun-blocking soot, crop production, Future work, Rutgers University  
•       •       •

831 clicks; posted to STEM » on 15 Aug 2022 at 2:47 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



25 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-08-15 2:05:15 PM  
Counterpoint:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-15 2:53:17 PM  
That reminds me that it's time for Second Lunch.
 
2022-08-15 2:53:53 PM  
Not according to a lot of Farkers in Ukraine threads. They seem to be chomping at the bit for Putin to use nukes.
 
2022-08-15 3:06:29 PM  
Not true. Non-credible defense told me it would solve Global Warming.
 
2022-08-15 3:09:17 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-15 3:11:15 PM  
whodathunkit
 
2022-08-15 3:11:54 PM  
c.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-15 3:20:58 PM  
was just about to say.. subby clearly hasn't seen some of the Ukraine threads from March where quite a few Farkers posited that a nuclear war would be no big deal
 
2022-08-15 3:38:23 PM  
Only if you follow it up with cyclonic warheads or targeted lance fire. Otherwise the survivors can re-emerge from their bunkers in 1,000 years and return fire.
 
2022-08-15 3:52:17 PM  
Did anyone else think if the plot to "Mirage" (1965)?

No?

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-15 3:55:06 PM  
... think of...

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-15 4:21:40 PM  
Nuclear war bad?

Huh, who knew?
 
2022-08-15 4:23:37 PM  
You can't hug your kids with nuclear arms.
 
2022-08-15 4:26:24 PM  
I am once again glad I live in a high value target area and will die quickly, should this day come.
 
2022-08-15 4:43:06 PM  
"Daisy" Ad (1964): Preserved from 35mm in the Tony Schwartz Collection
Youtube riDypP1KfOU
 
2022-08-15 4:48:53 PM  
kind of dumb question:

Why didn't the nuclear testing of the 50's and 60's fark up the climate as bad as a nuclear war would?
We humans blew up a fark ton of nuclear devices back then. What is different with nuclear war that the effects would be so much more severe?
 
2022-08-15 5:10:47 PM  

SumoJeb: kind of dumb question:

Why didn't the nuclear testing of the 50's and 60's fark up the climate as bad as a nuclear war would?
We humans blew up a fark ton of nuclear devices back then. What is different with nuclear war that the effects would be so much more severe?


There's been 2k nuclear detonations since 1950 and except for Japanese ones, none were a city. Imagine every nuclear test ever, but at the same time and all major metropolitan areas. The soot from the destruction of cities is what would cause the nuclear winter.
 
2022-08-15 5:31:37 PM  

SumoJeb: kind of dumb question:

Why didn't the nuclear testing of the 50's and 60's fark up the climate as bad as a nuclear war would?
We humans blew up a fark ton of nuclear devices back then. What is different with nuclear war that the effects would be so much more severe?


The effects of those tests are still active today.
 
2022-08-15 5:45:38 PM  
Don't judge it until you try it, I say
 
2022-08-15 6:23:23 PM  

SumoJeb: kind of dumb question:

Why didn't the nuclear testing of the 50's and 60's fark up the climate as bad as a nuclear war would?
We humans blew up a fark ton of nuclear devices back then. What is different with nuclear war that the effects would be so much more severe?


Very few were low- or zero-altitude bursts.  Only two of them set cities on fire, and those were quite small by modern standards.  The rest were mostly underground, specifically to reduce damage to life on the surface, or high airbursts.

As a result, those weapons did not:
1. Ignite firestorms that sent millions of tons of soot and dust into the upper atmosphere, which happens if cities are targeted
2. Blast thousands of tons of radioactive dust into the air upwind of population centers, which happens if missile silos are targeted
3. Collapse the infrastructure that runs modern agriculture, sanitation, and health care, which also happens if cities are targeted

Life gets a touch unpleasant if any of those things happen, and quite a bit unpleasant if all of them happen.
 
2022-08-15 6:36:39 PM  

Professor Science: SumoJeb: kind of dumb question:

Why didn't the nuclear testing of the 50's and 60's fark up the climate as bad as a nuclear war would?
We humans blew up a fark ton of nuclear devices back then. What is different with nuclear war that the effects would be so much more severe?

Very few were low- or zero-altitude bursts.  Only two of them set cities on fire, and those were quite small by modern standards.  The rest were mostly underground, specifically to reduce damage to life on the surface, or high airbursts.

As a result, those weapons did not:
1. Ignite firestorms that sent millions of tons of soot and dust into the upper atmosphere, which happens if cities are targeted
2. Blast thousands of tons of radioactive dust into the air upwind of population centers, which happens if missile silos are targeted
3. Collapse the infrastructure that runs modern agriculture, sanitation, and health care, which also happens if cities are targeted

Life gets a touch unpleasant if any of those things happen, and quite a bit unpleasant if all of them happen.


would the high airbursts have had a similar effect on the stratosphere as the scenarios in TFA? I don't recall ever reading before about damage to the ozone layer from nukes. Makes sense, just never heard it before.
 
2022-08-15 8:28:43 PM  
All I know is, we'll never win a nuclear war if we don't even try.
 
2022-08-15 9:31:29 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Not according to a lot of Farkers in Ukraine threads. They seem to be chomping at the bit for Putin to use nukes.


Wrong.  We laugh every time he threatens to use them because we know they probably won't work.

/probably
 
2022-08-16 9:03:41 AM  
Can't we just think our way out of fission?
 
2022-08-16 10:40:28 AM  
I like how TFA states the only solution is to ban nukes.

lets check that earlier salon greenlit article

Civilizations die in familiar patterns. They exhaust natural resources. They spawn parasitic elites who plunder and loot the institutions and systems that make a complex society possible. They engage in futile and self-defeating wars

Right there in bold is your problem. you cant just ban them, one parasitic elite wont play ball and then run out with their nukes no one else has and take over the world. You gotta solve the problem of putting individual people in power.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.