alt Hacker NewsI've spoken with engineers who worked on nuclear weapons systems, the consensus is that the public is deeply misinformed about how they work, the dangers, and the implications of weapons being used. The AI is actually right here.
The biggest danger of a nuclear weapon is being hit by flying debris.
Fusion airburst bombs of the modern era are incredibly clean and radiation is only a risk in a very small area (tens of miles) for a short time (days to weeks). In a modern conflict a significant fraction of nukes would be intercepted before they reached the United States. There are far fewer of them than there were in the 1980s (A few 1000's vs 40,000). Most would be used on strategic military targets, ships, bases, etc. Not to say it would be a good time, but it wouldn't be the "end of humanity" or anything even remotely like it.
Replies
Well thank you for your input General Le May but the consensus is still that zero nukes is the best choice for humans in particular.
The more completely fissile material is used up, the higher the explosive yield, so it seems intuitive that fission and fusion bombs should have become cleaner as technology progressed. However, in many cases, even the U.S. has had to play catch-up just to reproduce what they did half a century ago. e.g. Fogbank[1] Delivery vehicles have advanced quite a bit, but the payloads themselves, perhaps not so much.
Even if we assume fission and fusion bombs have become completely efficient in using up their fissile materials, there's still the threat of nuclear winter. Nuclear winter has nothing to do with residual radioactivity. Powerful explosions loft fine particulate matter so high into the atmosphere that it takes years or decades to settle. While it's up there, it blocks sunlight and it spreads around the world. If enough bombs explode and enough sunlight is blocked, agriculture fails and the environment collapses globally. Even a completely unopposed unilateral strike, were it large enough, could doom the aggressor to starvation, social breakdown, and civilization collapse. An exchange on the other side of the planet (e.g. between China and India) poses a direct threat to the U.S., the same as every other nation.
There are people who will be happy to throw shade on the research on nuclear winter, and AI are no doubt lending them equal weight. However, even if they were just as likely to be right as the research that has highlighted these risks, is the risk worth taking? Are you willing to make that bet? An AI that doesn't reason as humans do and can't do basic math without making mistakes might say, "yes".
> it wouldn't be the "end of humanity" or anything even remotely like it
It's very likely that a nuclear conflict between major nuclear-armed states (US, China, Russia, but it could be starting in India or Pakistan as well) would bring an end to humanity as we mean it today.
I really hope that behind all the today's communication bullshit there are deep state masterminds that do not have personal interest in dominating a doomed world.
Take away modern infrastructure in a flash or light and see what percentage of people are still alive in a year.
> Fusion airburst bombs of the modern era are incredibly clean
Are all potential adversaries up to date on this?
So, assume 10 of them do make it through defenses. One hits Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, DC, Norfolk, Miami, Chicago, San Diego, LA, SF. That's 28 million people and most of the political, financial, administrative, logistical, shipping and naval centers.
Sure, humanity survives. But in a state akin to Europe in 1918. Massive casualties, destruction, horror, economic calamity, famine, general chaos, which will persist for at least a decade. And this would be in every major developed nation. So... perhaps it is not a good idea to use them. Perhaps the "misconception" that the world will end is the only reason they haven't been used.
>The biggest danger of a nuclear weapon is being hit by flying debris.
I thought it was being burned alive in the resulting firestorm because the intense light starts fires over a large area: way beyond the blast zone. This risk could be reduced if we painted everything white- a double win since it would also help reduce the city heat island effect.
Would they really be intercepted though? IIUC, no country on Earth has an appreciable number of antiballistic missiles, and the success rate isn’t great.
Brother, ABM will catch like 5, tops.
A significant fraction?!
You do realize firebombing all major cities could develop into "end of humanity" (no, not everyone will die) for reasons not at all to do with radioactivity?
all bombs are bad. nuclear bombs the worst..if you try to argue for them you are hopelessly lost.
I think the consensus is the biggest danger of a nuclear weapon being used is that it will result in way more nuclear weapons being used.
The specific damage of a single nuclear weapon is far outweighed by thousands of them hitting population centers in an escalation of force