Let's start a war. Start a nuclear war.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Let's start a war. Start a nuclear war.

«‹›2 »

H.P. Hovercraft: Jan 12, 2004; one thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse; Slippery Tilde

also iirc sagan gave up the idea or said he might be wrong in one of his books or something

but now i�m fantasizing about the new sagan ndgt telling the public that the cia created hiv

# ? Aug 23, 2018 04:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 09:43

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

also iirc sagan gave up the idea or said he might be wrong in one of his books or something

but now i�m fantasizing about the new sagan ndgt telling the public that the cia created hiv

Neil deGrasse Tyson: hold my beer

# ? Aug 23, 2018 04:32

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

that kinda thing�s been their MO for awhile (even notes that one specifically at the top of the article)

Wow that article had some really damning example of that time during the Cold War when they *checks notes* accurately reported on American racial strife and it made America look bad to all the not white countries of the world. Curse the perfidious Slavs.

# ? Aug 23, 2018 17:30

The Dipshit: Dec 21, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

twoday posted:

I read somewhere that nuclear winter wouldn�t actually happen and that the whole theory was soviet propaganda meant to deter an American nuclear strike; thoughts?

Pretty much, You want airbursts for maximum spread of the "boom" to hit the ground, not kick up dirt.

Duscat posted:

nuclear war will be started by the united states

it doesn't really matter who strikes first, it's US escalation that's gonna make it happen

it's probably the US that strikes first though

once you're launching 2000 warheads and stopped, for some reason, in the middle of all out global thermonuclear war, why wouldn't you spend another 1000 to end technological society on the enemy's continent

still got thousands to go

I don't agree with the America-centric viewpoint you got there, but as to the rest:

Because after 2000 with the estimates we have, we all just throw up our hands and hope that nobody bothered to nuke South America so *somebody* has a civilization to work with to pick up the pieces, because the places that did get nuked with that much stuff aren't really going to be worth considering as a country. We currently have overkill for our overkill, out of the assumption that our opponents could probably knock a few down before they reach their target... by blowing up nukes in the flight path of our warheads. It's pretty metal/mental when you read up enough on it.

The Dipshit has issued a correction as of 17:43 on Aug 23, 2018

# ? Aug 23, 2018 17:40

H.P. Hovercraft: Jan 12, 2004; one thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse; Slippery Tilde

Helsing posted:

Wow that article had some really damning example of that time during the Cold War when they *checks notes* accurately reported on American racial strife and it made America look bad to all the not white countries of the world. Curse the perfidious Slavs.

whoosh

# ? Aug 23, 2018 18:02

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

whoosh

No I get it, the USSR once spread a rumour about AIDs therefore every dumb thing Americans believe is probably Russian disinformatzya.

The 'nuclear winter' hypothesis was advanced by western scientists who legitimately feared (with very good reason based on what we know about the Russian response to Able Archer) that the 'New Cold War' initiated by the Reagan administration would trigger a nuclear confrontation. They wanted to clearly establish a nuclear was wasn't 'winnable'. They relied on modelling which subsequent scientists have questioned the accuracy of. Seeing the anti-nuclear movement and the scientists behind it as Russian propaganda and then tying it into some lovely article in the Atlantic about the perfidious Russian tendency to publicize Jim Crow era legislation is the kind of poo poo that belongs in one of those terrible D&D megathreads.

# ? Aug 23, 2018 19:18

H.P. Hovercraft: Jan 12, 2004; one thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse; Slippery Tilde

Helsing posted:

No I get it,

you don�t

# ? Aug 23, 2018 19:25

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Sagan certainly did step outside of his field of expertise on the nuclear winter stuff and it was a big reason for his and Steve Schneider having a falling out.

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/nuclear-winter-theorists-pull-back.html

quote:

SINCE 1983, scientists have been bitterly divided over whether a nuclear war is likely to result in a catastrophic global chilling. But the five scientists who introduced the term ''nuclear winter'' now acknowledge that they overestimated its severity, and their concession appears to have moderated the longstanding debate.

Scientists say the issues involved are as pertinent to human survival as ever, despite the new friendliness of Soviet-American relations. The strategic nuclear arsensals of both nations remain intact, they note, and could come into play if the current peaceful climate gives way to war.

The techniques developed to predict the effects of nuclear war on climate are also applicable to other climatic predictions, including the possibility that increased carbon dioxide in the air is leading to global warming, theorists say. The nuclear winter scenario is also closely related to the theory that dinosaurs became extinct when a giant meteor hit the earth and threw up a global dust cloud that caused catastrophic cooling.
...
Dr. Sagan, a professor of astrophysics at Cornell University, was one of the scientists who collaborated with Dr. Turco in the article that ignited the nuclear winter dispute. The article, ''Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions,'' was published by the journal Science in 1983, and spawned a host of movies, plays and books predicated on the nuclear winter hypothesis.

The other authors of the article were Dr. Owen Brian Toon and Dr. James B. Pollack, both of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Ames Research Center, and Dr. Thomas P. Ackerman of Pennsylvania State University. Their paper became so famous and so frequently cited that other scientists have since referred to it by an acronym of the contributors' initials: TTAPS, pronounced ''tee-taps.''

That paper was not the first suggestion that global cooling might follow a nuclear exchange. A 1982 article by Dr. Paul J. Crutzen of the Max Planck Institute in West Germany and Dr. John W. Birks of the University of Colorado proposed the possibility of such an effect.

In a new paper published in Science, ''Climate and Smoke: An Appraisal of Nuclear Winter,'' the five TTAPS scientists review research conducted during the five years after their first joint paper. Drop in Temperatures While asserting that their general conclusions have been sustained, they say that a full-scale nuclear exchange in midsummer could reduce temperatures by an average of only 10 to 20 degrees centigrade (18 to 36 degrees Fahrenheit) in northern mid-latitudes. Compared with the reduction of 15 to 25 degrees centigrade (27 to 45 degrees Fahrenheit) predicted by their first paper, this chilling would be relatively mild, and in the view of some scientists, it deprives the phrase ''nuclear winter'' of realistic meaning.

Dr. Turco said his nuclear winter forecast had changed somewhat because he and his colleagues had been able to reduce the uncertainty inherent in some of the climatic effects involved. New experimental data and analyses from other groups also helped to refine his predictions, he said.

Dr. Stephen H. Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., a long-standing critic of the extreme nuclear winter hypothesis, believes that a cooling of 10 to 20 degrees centigrade (18 to 36 degrees Fahrenheit) would not constitute the arrival of ''winter.''

''I would call it nuclear fall, not winter,'' Dr. Schneider said in an interview. ''But in any case, the TTAPS numbers have now more or less converged with ours, so I don't have a major problem with them anymore.''

In their latest paper, Dr. Turco and his associates say they have summarized and synthesized important experimental evidence and mathematical predictions made by other groups related to nuclear winter, thereby reducing the uncertainties inherent in their theory.

''Essentially,'' Dr. Turco said, ''what we say is that the basic physics we proposed turned out to be correct, although the magnitude of the effects has been moderated somewhat.'' Blocking of Sunlight The theory underlying nuclear winter is that if the Soviet Union and the United States were to wage an unlimited nuclear war, much of the resulting dust and smoke from fires, especially those of burning cities, would be spewed into the upper atmosphere, where it might remain for weeks or months. This would block sunlight, resulting in a sudden drop in atmospheric temperature.

The latest paper suggests some additional atmospheric effects of an all-out nuclear war, notably a severe depletion of the ozone layer in the Northern Hemisphere, which protects human beings from dangerous solar ultraviolet radiation.

But although most critics of the nuclear winter theory have expressed only muted disagreement with the latest TTAPS paper, major discrepancies remain between its estimates and those of some other leading investigators.

An important factor in such estimates, all agree, is the quantity of combustible material that would contribute to the global pall of smoke. Based on estimates by various research groups, Dr. Turco assumes the total mass of material burned, including wood, plastics, petroleum and vegetation, would be 5,075 ''teragrams'' (trillions of grams), or about 6.8 billion tons.

But another leading investigator, Dr. Richard D. Small, a thermal science expert at Pacific-Sierra Research Corporation, a Los Angeles research organization, says he disagrees strongly with this estimate, which he believes is much too high.

Dr. Small estimates that a maximum of 1,475 teragrams of material would be burned in the United States, provided all the weapons in the Soviet arsenal were successfully launched and detonated, and that all combustible material was actually ignited. Comparable figures for burned material in Europe and the Soviet Union would be proportionately less, ''because those regions simply have less combustible material in homes, businesses and industries,'' he said.

# ? Aug 23, 2018 19:34

Mantis42: Jul 26, 2010

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

you don�t

no one gets what you're getting at

maybe post a post with more than two words

# ? Aug 23, 2018 21:47

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

Considering how frequently the USA came to massively loving up the world having panic attacks at the voices in its head, and how individual Soviets taking initiative in defiance of doctrine repeatedly kept the world from the brink, "nuclear winter is an FSB Active Measure" is a take and a loving half.

# ? Aug 24, 2018 00:47

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

Reminder that the film Crimson Tide is a metaphor for actual events retold through fiction because the heroes in that situation were unquestionably Soviet and Americans are delicate adult children. At least Denzel Washington got paid for doing his one character.

# ? Aug 24, 2018 00:49

Rookoo: Jul 24, 2007

Really interesting thread, thanks for the posts. One thing I find myself wondering is how many people would actually bother to go on if society is rapidly chucked back to the middle ages. It's one thing if your life has always been tough and it's been a struggle to survive, but the modern western population is generally seen as pretty fat and soft nowadays, even compared to the people kicking around in the 40s during WW2.

For some reason I can't imagine many people would choose being worked to death in a field for 20 years until they die prematurely over quickly doing themselves in, unless they've got loved ones to protect.

# ? Aug 24, 2018 01:22

Atrocious Joe: Sep 2, 2011

I'm going through Daniel Ellsberg's book, The Doomsday Machine, about nuclear warfare right now. It's pretty good, and the focus for at least the first half is based on his work in nuclear war planning in the late 50s through the 60s. He makes a pretty good case about how we'll all die from the eventual escalation if a nuclear bomb is ever used in combat been nuclear powers. I think his liberalism prevents him form seeing how racism and rabid anti-communism probably influenced US war planning though. He still seems confused at the time of writing why the US plans for nuclear war with the Soviet Union still involved destroying China even after the Sino-Soviet split was underway.

Anyway nuclear weapons are bad, but I still think Iran should get some.

# ? Aug 24, 2018 01:23

The Dipshit: Dec 21, 2005; by FactsAreUseless

Rookoo posted:

Really interesting thread, thanks for the posts. One thing I find myself wondering is how many people would actually bother to go on if society is rapidly chucked back to the middle ages. It's one thing if your life has always been tough and it's been a struggle to survive, but the modern western population is generally seen as pretty fat and soft nowadays, even compared to the people kicking around in the 40s during WW2.

For some reason I can't imagine many people would choose being worked to death in a field for 20 years until they die prematurely over quickly doing themselves in, unless they've got loved ones to protect.

People can get tough really loving quick, I wouldn't expect terribly too many people to just lay down and die because they can't play Pokemon Go or sleep comfortably in the summer.

# ? Aug 24, 2018 20:04

Leon Einstein: Feb 6, 2012; I must win every thread in GBS. I don't care how much banal semantic quibbling and shitty posts it takes.

Rookoo posted:

Really interesting thread, thanks for the posts. One thing I find myself wondering is how many people would actually bother to go on if society is rapidly chucked back to the middle ages. It's one thing if your life has always been tough and it's been a struggle to survive, but the modern western population is generally seen as pretty fat and soft nowadays, even compared to the people kicking around in the 40s during WW2.

For some reason I can't imagine many people would choose being worked to death in a field for 20 years until they die prematurely over quickly doing themselves in, unless they've got loved ones to protect.

I thought I heard that people in the middle ages had more leisure time than people today thanks to capitalism pushing everyone to work and spend tirelessly. Granted, of course we're fatter and softer as a society nowadays.

# ? Aug 24, 2018 20:10

Question Friend: Aug 3, 2018; by FactsAreUseless

Willie Tomg posted:

part 3: A-country and B-country, and why it sucks to be in either, the guy gets pretty weird and speculative at the end and frankly thats where he starts to lose me because there's a lot of ways things can break and a lot of ways for it to be put back together, but i generally agree that if the birds fly then you'd better have guns and clean rations in the country or life will Suck Bigly. even moreso, i mean.

so yeah that got a little fanfictiony toward the end there, but i think the general points he makes about targeting priorities and what warheads will be aimed where are fairly sound.

It doesn't seem that fanfictiony. Just follows naturally from the assumptions about what the nuclear exchange would destroy and hte assumption that population maintenance would be a top priority

# ? Aug 24, 2018 21:44

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

Question Friend posted:

It doesn't seem that fanfictiony. Just follows naturally from the assumptions about what the nuclear exchange would destroy and hte assumption that population maintenance would be a top priority

i don't think there's anything natural in that sexual analysis at all, except that its insanely naturally predictable that a guy who spent his career in lightless underground bunkers around other dudes would think its natural that women suddenly being the most important people on earth in an existential sense would be naturally dominated, overlooking the documented cultural reasons that was not the case in cultures touched by abrahamic religions where the primary artificial means of population control where plague and famine failed to do the job was bitter disputes over whether God was a faceted entity or a singular one.

i guess my point is: there's nothing "natural" about patriarchy. it crops up in places for reasons.

# ? Aug 25, 2018 03:20

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Willie Tomg posted:

i don't think there's anything natural in that sexual analysis at all, except that its insanely naturally predictable that a guy who spent his career in lightless underground bunkers around other dudes would think its natural that women suddenly being the most important people on earth in an existential sense would be naturally dominated, overlooking the documented cultural reasons that was not the case in cultures touched by abrahamic religions where the primary artificial means of population control where plague and famine failed to do the job was bitter disputes over whether God was a faceted entity or a singular one.

i guess my point is: there's nothing "natural" about patriarchy. it crops up in places for reasons.

Yeah but it's still got nothing on this claim:

quote:

In this situation the US has a terrific advantage over the rest of the world. Its called the Second Amendment. The B-country population is largely armed, sometimes quite heavily. They do exactly what Founding Fathers envisaged - provide a body of armed people whom the local authority can assemble to maintain order. (The Supreme Court may argue that interpretation of the Second Amendment but by now they are doing so with the people who wrote it). In a more general sense, post-holocaust fiction usually has gangs of outlaws preying on the defenseless citizenry. Interestingly that doesn't seem to happen. In disasters people tend to work together rather than against eachother (for example in US urban disasters Hells Angels biker gangs have made sterling contributions to relief efforts using their bikes and riding skills to get emergency supplies through to places others can't). While lawlessness and disorder do occur, the ease of forming a civilian militia (using the term properly here meaning something very much like the Sheriff?s Posse beloved of Westerns) brings that situation under control. Other countries are unlikely to be so fortunate.

For anyone wondering how this works out in practice I think Hurricane Katrina provides a nice proof of concept for how stabilizing it was in a disaster when a bunch of upset and highly armed white people formed a "militia" during a major disaster.

That having been said it is a good read and its cool to hear someone actually discussing some of the strategic considerations that go into where the bombs get detonated and what gets targeted.

# ? Aug 25, 2018 15:22

Question Friend: Aug 3, 2018; by FactsAreUseless

Willie Tomg posted:

i don't think there's anything natural in that sexual analysis at all, except that its insanely naturally predictable that a guy who spent his career in lightless underground bunkers around other dudes would think its natural that women suddenly being the most important people on earth in an existential sense would be naturally dominated, overlooking the documented cultural reasons that was not the case in cultures touched by abrahamic religions where the primary artificial means of population control where plague and famine failed to do the job was bitter disputes over whether God was a faceted entity or a singular one.

This post gets really hard to follow halfway through

# ? Aug 25, 2018 15:25

wilfredmerriweathr: Jul 11, 2005

Counterpoint: Louisiana sucks and I think the actions of people post-exchange in say Washington State or California or New Hampshire are probably going to be a little different than the actions of a bunch of southern rear end in a top hat rednecks who have been dreaming of killing minorities their whole life.

There's also the fact that most of the people that came into new orleans to shoot at minorities were from areas that didn't get flooded and were totally fine. This of course doesn't really match the post-exchange world at all because everybody would be hosed in that case. Katrina allowed a bunch of white dudes from outstate to act out their hosed up fantasies because their own homes and families were fine.

# ? Aug 25, 2018 15:28

Butter Activities: May 4, 2018

The Dipshit posted:

People can get tough really loving quick, I wouldn't expect terribly too many people to just lay down and die because they can't play Pokemon Go or sleep comfortably in the summer.

but then we can�t circle jerk about owning the libs because live in a slightly more rural area.

But seriously anyone who think a civil war would be awesome or that �their side� would do so well that they�d actually accomplish anything positive is a dangerous loving moron.

Plus most of these people stroking themselves are extremists and outcasts. Why on earth these people think somehow just making poo poo worse would give them an opportunity?

# ? Aug 25, 2018 15:59

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

Question Friend posted:

This post gets really hard to follow halfway through

Everything you consider as "natural" i/r/t sexuality is a cultural affectation of some imperial society or other. Removing those structures would do the opposite of entrench those structures.

# ? Aug 25, 2018 21:13

the bitcoin of weed: Nov 1, 2014

wilfredmerriweathr posted:

Counterpoint: Louisiana sucks and I think the actions of people post-exchange in say Washington State or California or New Hampshire are probably going to be a little different than the actions of a bunch of southern rear end in a top hat rednecks who have been dreaming of killing minorities their whole life.

There's also the fact that most of the people that came into new orleans to shoot at minorities were from areas that didn't get flooded and were totally fine. This of course doesn't really match the post-exchange world at all because everybody would be hosed in that case. Katrina allowed a bunch of white dudes from outstate to act out their hosed up fantasies because their own homes and families were fine.

the west coast is where all the bundy rancher militia lunatics are from and the big expanses of cow pasture in the near-desert are just the sorts of areas that would be untouched by nuclear exchange

# ? Aug 25, 2018 21:36

Pener Kropoopkin: Jan 30, 2013

Being worked to death over the course of 20 years is pretty good compared to how people typically get worked to death.

# ? Aug 25, 2018 22:04

A Big Fuckin Hornet: Nov 1, 2016; by Nyc_Tattoo

Blisster posted:

I don't have anything intelligent to say about nukes, but I appreciate the Electric Six reference.

Also did not read but lol remember when they edited whipcracks into nuclear and war to play on radio and MTV because we were bombing Iraq lmbo

# ? Aug 25, 2018 22:08

Pener Kropoopkin: Jan 30, 2013

The whole "people helping each other in crisis" premise applies to literally any other country, and it's baffling why anyone would think that having millions of firearms in the background would somehow make post apocalyptic America more stable. It doesn't take much to touch off a war between armed militias, which in the American context is just a fancy word for gangs of white people.

# ? Aug 25, 2018 22:14

Percelus: Sep 9, 2012; My command, your wish is

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

The whole "people helping each other in crisis" premise applies to literally any other country, and it's baffling why anyone would think that having millions of firearms in the background would somehow make post apocalyptic America more stable. It doesn't take much to touch off a war between armed militias, which in the American context is just a fancy word for gangs of white people.

i think george romero was trying to tell americans this but all they got out of his films was better have some firearms and katanas ready for when zombies come

# ? Aug 25, 2018 22:30

Percelus: Sep 9, 2012; My command, your wish is

oh and don't me started on the lessons they learned from the movies wall street or glenngarry glenn ross

# ? Aug 25, 2018 22:32

Duscat: Jan 4, 2009; Fun Shoe

rural areas in all developed nations have tons of guns, it's part of rural life, they all hunt and kill pests

what most of them don't have is the foundational racism that the loudest 2nd amendment folks in the us share, that long-standing desire to kill a major section of your own fellow citizens

when nuclear war happens, america is gonna fall a lot deeper than the enlightened states that can work together as a society

# ? Aug 25, 2018 23:07

Pener Kropoopkin: Jan 30, 2013

Duscat posted:

rural areas in all developed nations have tons of guns, it's part of rural life, they all hunt and kill pests

what most of them don't have is the foundational racism that the loudest 2nd amendment folks in the us share, that long-standing desire to kill a major section of your own fellow citizens

when nuclear war happens, america is gonna fall a lot deeper than the enlightened states that can work together as a society

Let's say that the original premise is right, and all these militias keep the peace for a while. What you end up getting are dozens of individual polities that are all armed to the teeth and inherently distrustful of each other. Like all states are, and especially when nobody could communicate instantaneously across the globe.

# ? Aug 25, 2018 23:09

Duscat: Jan 4, 2009; Fun Shoe

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Let's say that the original premise is right, and all these militias keep the peace for a while. What you end up getting are dozens of individual polities that are all armed to the teeth and inherently distrustful of each other. Like all states are, and especially when nobody could communicate instantaneously across the globe.

yeah it's not looking great for any society where there's tons of people who are gonna go HELL YEA AT LAST, RACE WAR W000000

# ? Aug 26, 2018 00:02

Jewel Repetition: Dec 24, 2012; Ask me about Briar Rose and Chicken Chaser.

After the nuclear exchange European countries will be like some idyllic Thomas Kinkade paintings and the US will be like a combination of Mad Max and Far Cry 5

# ? Aug 26, 2018 00:16

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

then the longboats crossing east over the atlantic land and the viking age starts all over

# ? Aug 26, 2018 00:28

Mister Speaker: May 8, 2007; WE WILL CONTROL
ALL THAT YOU SEE
AND HEAR

Happy Judgment Day, y'all!!!

Thanks OP for making this thread. Some real fascinating stuff in your posts.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 06:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 09:43

Segata Sanshiro: Sep 10, 2011; we can live for nothing
baby i don't care

lose me like the ocean
feel the motion

if you wanna get real brain poisoning read Command and Control by Eric Schlosser: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_Control_(book)

every day we don't blow ourselves up is nothing short of loving astonishing

# ? Aug 29, 2018 06:17

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Let's start a war. Start a nuclear war.

«‹›2 »