• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anyone taken measures in case of a nuclear exchange?

Oh, I agree. (I assume you mean "fusion" rather than "fission", but that doesn't really matter).

The idea that all life or even all humankind would be destroyed is fanciful.

I think it is true, however, that a nuclear war that involved, let's say, 70% of large cities would end life as we know it. All the structures of civilization - government, law, communications, transportation, material logistics - would be finished, and survivors would be scrambling for themselves for quite a while until some kind of civilization could be rebuilt. That will be a very nasty experience for all but the strongest, and possibly even for them. I would expect that some kind of civilization would emerge quite a bit faster than it did the first time around for us, because there would be people with memory of the technologies and institutions we've used, at least for a few decades. A lot would depend on how much they could pass on before dying off, because much of the information needed would evaporate from electronic storage. Books would become very important again.
It seems it would depend on the power grid more than anything. Take out 70% fmlarge cities that still leaves half the population. If the power grid could be patched and gotten back on line reasonably soon, we wouldn't loose civilization. We would just be not rich any more for awhile.
 
Because 8 years ago is when the Pentagon started studying the effects of multiple nukes at once rather than trying to extrapolate an entire war from one explosion?

What part isn't getting through, here?
Yea I was asking for your source for this info.
 
It seems it would depend on the power grid more than anything. Take out 70% fmlarge cities that still leaves half the population. If the power grid could be patched and gotten back on line reasonably soon, we wouldn't loose civilization. We would just be not rich any more for awhile.

Of course, it's all speculative, but I disagree. The electromotive pulse would knock out pretty much all of the power grid. And possibly more important, the organizations that fix powergrids and the tools they use to fix them would be gone.
 
Of course, it's all speculative, but I disagree. The electromotive pulse would knock out pretty much all of the power grid. And possibly more important, the organizations that fix powergrids and the tools they use to fix them would be gone.
I don't know enough to say.

But as long as power could be maintained, we would be ok in the big picture.
 
i believe that approach defies the concept of mutually assured destruction
where both sides would expect to launch everything they had against the other to take out the opposition
i believe the star wars approach ronnie raygun advocated alarmed the USSR, being unable to match the perception that our nukes would arrive on target while the ruskies' would largely be destroyed before reaching target
probably a massive bluff that worked
i believe your presentation is similar to the star wars bluff

The concept of mutually assured destruction is not a scientific concept. It's a principle that the USSR and the Western powers used to justify extremely large arsenals of nuclear weapons. By "justify", I'm not implying that there was any dishonesty, true assurance of mutual destruction would be a better situation than high confidence that a first strike would stop most retaliation.

But it's by no means logically required that a first strike couldn't stop most retaliation. It may not be likely, but it's by no means illogical or impossible. Hypersonic missiles are (reportedly) not only unstoppable but undetectable until they are near their target. A large number of hypersonic missiles launched at all of an enemy's nuclear weapons capacity (this would require very good intelligence) could very well stop most retaliation.

I hope no one tries to say that I'm suggesting this would be a good outcome. It would not.
 
It seems it would depend on the power grid more than anything. Take out 70% fmlarge cities that still leaves half the population. If the power grid could be patched and gotten back on line reasonably soon, we wouldn't loose civilization. We would just be not rich any more for awhile.

What about the radiation? What about the 10,000 "volcanos' worth" of material thrown up into the atmosphere, circling the globe? Maybe not everywhere, but over billions of agricultural acres? (And the radiation is up there as well thru many levels, of atmospheric currents.)
 
Last edited:
Of course, it's all speculative, but I disagree. The electromotive pulse would knock out pretty much all of the power grid. And possibly more important, the organizations that fix powergrids and the tools they use to fix them would be gone.

And all modern vehicles and communication and computerized devices (including diagnostic tools).
 
I have stockpiled one hand-operated can opener. I will be able to rule what is left of humanity.

On a more serious note, I wouldn't want to live in a post apocalyptic world and unlike some of you, I'm not flexible enough to have the satisfaction of kissing my butt goodbye. Whoever survived would most likely repeat history. If there are science fiction fans here, A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller Jr., is, imo, one of the best post-nuclear apocalyptic novels.
 
And all modern vehicles and communication and computerized devices (including diagnostic tools).
The we used on Japan stayed fairly localized, and those were much more dirty than today's bombs
 
The we used on Japan stayed fairly localized, and those were much more dirty than today's bombs

That's really not true.

Today's hydrogen bombs are ignited using plutonium bombs bigger than the ones used on Japan. And they have U235 fission boosters that add yet more fission products to the mix.

It's possible to overestimate the consequences of a nuclear war. Some people seem to think that everyone on earth would be wiped out immediately, or that everyone on earth would die soon after. That's not realistic.

But it's also possible to underestimate the consequences. It would certainly be the end of anything like civilization for a long time.
 
That's really not true.

Today's hydrogen bombs are ignited using plutonium bombs bigger than the ones used on Japan. And they have U235 fission boosters that add yet more fission products to the mix.

It's possible to overestimate the consequences of a nuclear war. Some people seem to think that everyone on earth would be wiped out immediately, or that everyone on earth would die soon after. That's not realistic.

But it's also possible to underestimate the consequences. It would certainly be the end of anything like civilization for a long time.
Ok even given that, it seems the japan bombs were localized.
 
The we used on Japan stayed fairly localized, and those were much more dirty than today's bombs

They were in no way nearly as powerful as today's nukes. I cant believe you even wrote that. They werent even hydrogen bombs.
 
Back
Top Bottom