Anon is a proponent for democracy

[-]

iamAliAsghar@reddit

They have enough arsenal to turn USA into rubble.

[-]

SyntheticDuckFlavour@reddit

lol you don't need much. Drop five of those in the megaton range, it would be pretty much a civilisation ending event for the recipient.

[-]

CSGaz1@reddit

New York - gone

San Francisco - gone

Los Angeles - gone

Detroit - gone

Washington D.C. - gone

ooohhhh nooooo...

.
GDP rises, demoralization stops, a political reshuffle takes place, the nation is unified, graft and corruption decrease, and the US enters a new golden age.

[-]

Those cities contribute a massive share of national economic activity. Losing Washington D.C. alone implies a breakdown of federal governance. Whatever political cohesiveness there was domestically and internationally will be gone overnight. And since most of the economic activity is gone, survivors will be will be jobless, will have no money (does money even have value anymore?) and have no prospects of a financially stable future. With the country being rendered completely impotent, entire families, relatives, friends turned to glass, survivors will be utterly demoralised for generations - assuming they survive the years of crop failure from mild nuclear winter and associated fallout. Don't be daft. Stick to your Civilization games.

[-]

UpsidedownEngineer@reddit

On the flip side, wouldn't the survivors having lost basically anything go into a completely bloodlusted state and launch the remaining nuclear arsenal against China in this hypothetical.

Far from being demoralised, the survivors would most likely band together to get rid of what is left of China. Now I don't want this to happen, hell my most recent holiday was to China last December for family there, but this is literally MAD in action.

MAD only works because nuclear states wouldn't just accept being destroyed without destroying the other nuclear state in question. If the survivors don't react to this then MAD breaks apart.

[-]

SyntheticDuckFlavour@reddit

Far from being demoralised, the survivors would most likely band together to get rid of what is left of China.

Yea na, i seriously doubt that's going to happen. There is no sufficient support systems left for a massive invasion on the other side of the globe. Anyone left alive will be in survival mode, and will focus on living through the next winter. Whatever infrastructure is left, civilian or military, will be used to aid survival.

[-]

UpsidedownEngineer@reddit

That is where you are wrong, even if the entire US economic and political centres at major cities are obliterated, the US would have the ability to carry out a retaliatory second strike using their Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs).

That is also not mentioning that some hardened nuclear silos would likely survive the first wave of strikes. However I will concede that the air leg of the nuclear triad will almost certainly be knocked out since airbases aren't going to survive any wave of strikes.

There are also a number of American nuclear weapons located in Europe under NATO nuclear sharing agreements which would be used for a second strike.

I will reiterate that I don't want this to happen, it's just a reality of MAD.

[-]

SyntheticDuckFlavour@reddit

There are also a number of American nuclear weapons located in Europe under NATO nuclear sharing agreements which would be used for a second strike.

If Europe sees the horror unfolding in front of them, do you thing they would adhere to the NATO nuclear sharing agreements? If they had any sensibilities in place, they would say "fuck this" and do anything to prevent a second strike happening, irrespective what the US wants.

[-]

UpsidedownEngineer@reddit

You cannot steal another country's nuclear weapons that are hosted on your soil. There is a reason why Ukraine had to return all the Soviet nuclear weapons hosted on it's soil back to Russia after the Soviet Union broke up.

Good chance the US forces there just take the weapon back home and do a second strike using it.

[-]

TorfriedGiantsfraud@reddit

If US have the capability to force a reluctant Euro country to give them back some nukes, they'll probably also be capable of launching a strike from Europe, as well as from home without interscting with Europe at all?

[-]

TorfriedGiantsfraud@reddit

MAD is made to work in an immediate fashion, so that counterstrikes get launched the moment a missile is detected; this even has the hazard of retaliatory strikes being triggered by a false alert or some such.

So there may be no need for "survivors to get angry and band together" or anything of that sort, in such a scenario.

[-]

CSGaz1@reddit

Oh wow, you actually were being serious. You massively overestimate the effect of nukes and underestimate the resilience of society in general. Take it to one of the serious-posting subs, so they can tell you what a silly boy you are.

[-]

SyntheticDuckFlavour@reddit

You massively overestimate

No

Only takes a few bombs in megaton range detonated over cities to produce enough aerosols and particulates form burning synthetic materials to linger in the stratosphere for years, creating a cooling effect globally. It doesn't take much to induce crop failure globally. Lower summers by a few degrees, shorten the warm seasons by a few months, and repeat this for couple of years in succession. You have a civilisation ending scenario, right there.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017JD027331

underestimate the resilience of society in general

once food, fuel, basic utilities run out, the bunch of remaining rednecks will turn on each other

Take it to one of the serious-posting subs,

lol, what is this "serious sub" you are talking about, 🚬 boy?

Actually, no. Don't bother. You can stop responding to me now.

[-]

CSGaz1@reddit

Our analysis demonstrates that the probability of significant global cooling from a limited exchange scenario as envisioned in previous studies is highly unlikely, a conclusion supported by examination of natural analogs, such as large forest fires and volcanic eruptions

The source you posted even goes against your own statement. And even scaling up to Mt-energies wouldn't make much of difference.

You are a joke.

[-]

SyntheticDuckFlavour@reddit

Did you actually make it beyond the abstract after cherry picking that quote? Read the whole paper, champ.

The source you posted even goes against your own statement.

Since you were too lazy to read, or perhaps didn't have the attention span, let me explain to you what the paper is about: It's a comparative study of nuclear fallout effects. The authors made a point that climate impacts are less severe compared to the claims made in other studies. However, that conclusion doesn't imply there won't be any climate impact after a few megaton strike. That's not what they claim at all, so your little cherry pick is not a gotcha as you might think. It means the duration of climate impact will be less compared to previous estimates.

And even scaling up to Mt-energies wouldn't make much of difference.

Look at figure 14 and 17. The climate will be impacted for 5 - 7 years in succession, with a significant reduction in global average temperature. Now imagine the world fails grow crops in enough quantities feed everyone for that long. For homework, I'll leave you to contemplate on that.

Anyway, it was a nice to tussle. Hope you'll meet someone better suited to your level next time you engage in an exchange like this.

[-]

CSGaz1@reddit

Yeah, no.

When you're done sniffing your own farts, you may want to read your own cited examples (not just the pretty pictures beside them). They are talking about events, multiple orders of magnitude above the expected exchange to still being fairly survivable.

Also, and I know that this might be difficult to stomach for someone who is effectively science-illiterate, they mention on multiple occasions that their results are far from certain and always undermine previous, more catastrophic assumptions. In science speak, this usually means "please don't write stupid news articles about us (or use us in some vain attempt at winning in the comment section).

The main event is talking about fires and carbon release and you don't even need nukes for that, because - and I know that this may absolutely blow your mind - we have conducted literal hundreds of atmospheric nuclear explosions, without ending the world, so it probably wasn't just the nuking, huh? They talk about the carbon. And guess what? If you were to compare humanity's yearly carbon output with that of the model in the study or the average volcanic output, you'd quickly notice that your hysteria is unjustified.

But you are extrapolating it from a scenario that wasn't even in the study anyway and are just assuming something you want to believe, so I'm guessing you won't extrapolate from any of the above towards an outcome that might undermine your endless walls of cope anyway. Still fun to write though.

Also, shitting yourself at the end of each comment and then declaring the conversation to be over is the peak of the narcissistic imbecile. But I guess that's your style.

We can keep playing this game, but it will not make you a real person.

[-]

SyntheticDuckFlavour@reddit

You type so much, and yet you understand so little.

The main event is talking about fires and carbon release

From simultaneously detonating few megatons over cities, that contain synthetic materials that will burn and smoulder for weeks. See table 1 in the paper, which details fuel loading.

and I know that this may absolutely blow your mind - we have conducted literal hundreds of atmospheric nuclear explosions, without ending the world,

Which were conducted - and I know that this may absolutely blow your mind - in the fucking desert, which were in the kilotons range and with a time gap between detonations literally a few months to years. Despite all that, all superpowers stopped atmospheric testing because of fallout and environmental concerns. The problem was getting serious enough to enact the Partial Test Ban Treaty. Subsequent testing was done underground. Look it up.

If you were to compare humanity's yearly carbon output with that of the model in the study or the average volcanic output, you'd quickly notice that your hysteria is unjustified

And yet their model clearly shows 5-7 year global climate cooling. I literally pointed out where to look. Why are you ignoring that? Because you have argue brain. Also humanity's yearly carbon output is different to an impulse of output from several detonations. Also, this is not just about CO2, it's also about particulates (soot, dust, ash) entering into the stratosphere, which linger around for years, reducing sun radiance.

The rest of your post is just drivel not worth addressing.

[-]

CSGaz1@reddit

The rest of your post is just drivel not worth addressing.

Well, if you're not going to play, then this isn't fun at all. And projecting argue brain onto others is just sad.

But let me put it in smaller words:

Your chosen scenario doesn't work. It is weaker than the scenario in the study, even when you throw in Mt warheads, because the outcome would not scale in a linear fashion. The scenario in the study also doesn't end the world. And the study is far from certain on its outcomes.

Therefor your baseline assumption is highly unlikely at best. Probably downright wrong.

Post the same base assumption - five (5) nukes in megaton range end a civilization - on any subs (which rule 5 prevents me from naming) and you will get the same result. Arguing with a stranger on the 4Chan sub is obviously not beneath you, so don't even claim to have standards. In truth, you are a dirty little lusty wench for this sort of stuff.

I am sorry that you are the way you are, but only you can change that. I'd wish you a fantastic day, but I have no idea what depraved activities that would involve, so I'm just going to leave it at "have a day".

If you are desperate to take that as you "winning the argument", then go for it. You are in fact a hero. Everyone who ever doubted you was wrong and a stupid.

I won enough by learning of a new study and got some new information.

[-]

SyntheticDuckFlavour@reddit

Just stop battling dude. Cut your losses an move on.

[-]

CSGaz1@reddit

I literally just said that I was moving on (still struggling with the ol' reading comprehension, I see), but apparently, you can't do the thing you desire from others.

The problem is of course that you can't accept that you are not only entirely obsessed with standing on a pathetic position nor can you fathom that you are wrong, so you won't make the post anywhere else, where you might get dog-piled for saying something so dumb and you will struggle intensely in not responding to this, without some last "oh yeah, you totally lost" thing.

I'd honestly love to see you squirm, when you read this, because you'll know that if you respond you're a bit of a gimp to your own obsession. But if you don't, then someone else might have gotten the last word in and that just won't do.

In either case, lol.

[-]

SyntheticDuckFlavour@reddit

>autism

[-]

Valuable-Chipmunk784@reddit

Those cities contribute a massive share of national economic activity

That sounds like a lot. Isn't as much as it sounds like, though.

Canada has 165 billion barrels reserve.

[-]

CSGaz1@reddit

Still better to have than to covet.