Turn on thread page Beta

If one nuclear weapon is detonated, how much time until the human race's extinction? watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joseph90)
    You used the right vocabulary. It is not yet known if the technology is the development of weapons, the production of energy or even research into science.
    True. But even assuming the technology isn't being developed for weapons, once that technology is there, then it doesn't take much brain power to stick it on the top of a rocket and make a missile.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I doubt any non-nuclear countries would involve themselves in such a war (bringing a knife to a gunfight ). That would leave South America, Africa, Australia and many other places largely unscathed.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joseph90)
    Scientists in Switzerland have developed small amounts of antimatter. A few grams of this could destroy a city. The media and world leaders have never expressed fear at this development. Though Dan Brown has I suppose.
    True, but human history has shown that if it is possible, we will turn anything into a weapon.

    Once the creation and use of antimatter is easier and cheaper, I have no doubt someone will use it to make a weapon.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I do honestly beleive that the human life will end by either a nuclear or biological war. Which leads me to wonder if the 'meteor' that wiped out the dinosaurs was really a nuclear bomb .. hmm...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sron)
    I doubt any non-nuclear countries would involve themselves in such a war (bringing a knife to a gunfight ). That would leave South America, Africa, Australia and many other places largely unscathed.
    There are so many repercussions to think of though. Not least of which, if significant quantities of nuclear weapons are used, the effects will probably be felt throughout the entire world.
    I don't know entirely the workings of nuclear attack's after-effects, but imagine entire water supplies perhaps even oceans, that are undrinkable? and air that is unbreathable? how can that be contained?
    If the nuclear fumes are dispersed, how far would they spread, and how much would it take to cause health problems to people thousands of miles away?

    Secondly, and something I know would definately happen, would be total infrastructural collapse. The world economy would absolutely dissappear, networks for transport of fuel, food, "non-essential" supplies (like clothes, alchohol, makeup e.t.c) would all become untenable, no more global trade routes, the internet would probably cease to exist, nations would effectively be shut off from one another. Money would almost immediatly lose all value and a bartering system would come into place.
    The economic repercussions of 9/11 were very grave; several nuclear attacks in key places for example New York, London, Beijing, would be utterly disastrous, and it might take decades to recover. Full-scale nuclear war would simply make the word "economy" obsolete. That's my view of it.
    If nuclear war were to happen, the entire globe would be affected and I personally think that social devolution would be inescapable. (and thats not even taking into account all the health effects, which I dont know enough about)
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    True, but human history has shown that if it is possible, we will turn anything into a weapon.

    Once the creation and use of antimatter is easier and cheaper, I have no doubt someone will use it to make a weapon.
    Wasn't even aware of that pretty cool
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joseph90)
    You used the right vocabulary. It is not yet known if the technology is the development of weapons, the production of energy or even research into science.

    Scientists in Switzerland have developed small amounts of antimatter. A few grams of this could destroy a city. The media and world leaders have never expressed fear at this development. Though Dan Brown has I suppose.
    At present, antimatter costs $62.5 trillion per gram. I think creating a nuke is cheaper.

    Source: http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall...man/modern.htm
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eradicus)
    There are so many repercussions to think of though. Not least of which, if significant quantities of nuclear weapons are used, the effects will probably be felt throughout the entire world.
    I don't know entirely the workings of nuclear attack's after-effects, but imagine entire water supplies perhaps even oceans, that are undrinkable? and air that is unbreathable? how can that be contained?
    If the nuclear fumes are dispersed, how far would they spread, and how much would it take to cause health problems to people thousands of miles away?

    Secondly, and something I know would definitely happen, would be total infrastructural collapse. The world economy would absolutely dissappear, networks for transport of fuel, food, "non-essential" supplies (like clothes, alchohol, makeup e.t.c) would all become untenable, no more global trade routes, the internet would probably cease to exist, nations would effectively be shut off from one another. Money would almost immediatly lose all value and a bartering system would come into place.
    The economic repercussions of 9/11 were very grave; several nuclear attacks in key places for example New York, London, Beijing, would be utterly disastrous, and it might take decades to recover. Full-scale nuclear war would simply make the word "economy" obsolete. That's my view of it.
    If nuclear war were to happen, the entire globe would be affected and I personally think that social devolution would be inescapable. (and thats not even taking into account all the health effects, which I dont know enough about)
    I was talking about the human cost, as per OP's question. I'm well aware of the likely socio-economic repercussions that would follow a nuclear war. Society may well crumble, but human extinction is near impossible. Nukes aren't that powerful and humanity is surprisingly resilient. An ice age would bring us far closer to the brink.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    World leaders would fire, if russia attacked america, america wouldn't let russia get away with it, and would probably spend the 8 minutes the devices would take to get to them, firing their whole nucleur arsenal at tactical positions within Russia.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandeep90)
    At present, antimatter costs $62.5 trillion per gram. I think creating a nuke is cheaper.

    Source: http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall...man/modern.htm
    Do CERN accept PayPal?

    The site says it could be reduced to £5 billion per gram. The UK are spending a huge amount on renewing trident in the near future. Though even at £5 billion per gram only superpowers will be the ones able to launch an Antimatter programme. Though it could get into the hands of terrorists. Thinking Angels and Demons again. :ninja:

    Antimatter may seem a spanner in the works in this discussion but its potential development could be the ultimate nuclear deterrent. If the USA and the UK fear countries like Iran are catching up then they may think it's time to move up a level.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joseph90)
    Do CERN accept PayPal?

    The site says it could be reduced to £5 billion per gram. The UK are spending a huge amount on renewing trident in the near future. Though even at £5 billion per gram only superpowers will be the ones able to launch an Antimatter programme. Though it could get into the hands of terrorists. Thinking Angels and Demons again. :ninja:
    Imagine the horror... the horror of Dan Brown's writing being accurate.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I think having nuclear weapons is an issue of tactic rather than action.

    It's like stealing your little sister's teddy bear and asking her for money if she wants it back. You threaten to burn it if she doesn't comply. You haven't stolen the teddy bear because you want to burn it, you just want the money.

    Similarly, nuclear weapons are not made to kill people and countries. What do other countries want from the others? Usually work force, resources, control, etc. If they bomb those things, how on earth are they getting anything? Why would a country waste energy, resources and money on building nuclear weapons if they only want to destroy other resources on the planet? It's almost masochist, suicidal.

    Nuclear weapons have definitely got a more tactical, theoretical role to play in politics. No-one gains anything from bombing places.

    If your little sister tells you that she doesn't care if you burn her teddy bear, then you're left armless and look like an idiot.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sron)
    I doubt any non-nuclear countries would involve themselves in such a war (bringing a knife to a gunfight ). That would leave South America, Africa, Australia and many other places largely unscathed.
    Very interesting point.

    A very crude and thought provoking though maybe but is it realistic that a nation not even involved with nukes could be destroyed by an equipped country's interests in their final minutes?

    I wonder if the rich nuclear countries are eradicated, in the process of the very short war would western nuclear equipped countries attempt to eradicate poor non-nuclear nations in order to die with the knowledge that the remaining world won't be a muslim ruled one?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    I think having nuclear weapons is an issue of tactic rather than action.

    It's like stealing your little sister's teddy bear and asking her for money if she wants it back. You threaten to burn it if she doesn't comply. You haven't stolen the teddy bear because you want to burn it, you just want the money.

    Similarly, nuclear weapons are not made to kill people and countries. What do other countries want from the others? Usually work force, resources, control, etc. If they bomb those things, how on earth are they getting anything? Why would a country waste energy, resources and money on building nuclear weapons if they only want to destroy other resources on the planet? It's almost masochist, suicidal.

    Nuclear weapons have definitely got a more tactical, theoretical role to play in politics. No-one gains anything from bombing places.

    If your little sister tells you that she doesn't care if you burn her teddy bear, then you're left armless and look like an idiot.
    The Teddy Bear analogy is very interesting and I like it. It works well when comparing it to countries. However if a one off nuclear attack was made, the possibility of a separatist terrorist organisation would be the first thing the countries would consider. As Alfred says in The Dark Knight, "Some men just want to the world burn". If you haven't seen The Dark Knight, quote me and I will happily explain why I used the particular quote.

    Also, do you think it is realistic that a leader of a country wouldn't actually care about seeing their own country eradicated? If any leader felt this way, he would most likely be irrational. This, if nuclear war happened, would most likely be the cause of it. So if the little sister saw her teddy bear burn then it is likely she would burn your toys and clothes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joseph90)
    The Teddy Bear analogy is very interesting and I like it. It works well when comparing it to countries. However if a one off nuclear attack was made, the possibility of a separatist terrorist organisation would be the first thing the countries would consider. As Alfred says in The Dark Knight, "Some men just want to the world burn".

    Also, do you think it is realistic that a leader of a country wouldn't actually care about seeing their own country eradicated?
    ^ Well, of course, would the little sister say she doesn't care? Of course not, that's the key thing that makes the wheel go round. She's scared and feels vulnerable. But if she realizes that the big brother is vulnerable himself for needing the money, then she can twist the situation by saying that "I'll give you the money when you give me the teddy back"

    :laugh:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    ^ Well, of course, would the little sister say she doesn't care? Of course not, that's the key thing that makes the wheel go round. She's scared and feels vulnerable. But if she realizes that the big brother is vulnerable himself for needing the money, then she can twist the situation by saying that "I'll give you the money when you give me the teddy back"

    :laugh:
    If your little sister is incredibly intelligent she will use reverse psychology to her advantage knowing that you would go and coerce another person into handing over money. For a country, this would be a huge gamble and very dangerous if they were under threat. Though if you are a rational person, you would back off as soon as your sister realises you need money. Though if you are irrational, you would realise that money is irrelevant compared to the pleasure of watching a teddy bear burn. Think of this analogically.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    You should read Neville Shute's book 'On the Beach' to find out what he thinks would happen in the event of a nuclear war. I love his books because the characters are such decent people.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(novel)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    er, it all depends on what you classify as a 'nuclear weapon':

    nuclear missile
    nuclear bomb
    dirty bomb
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edge)
    er, it all depends on what you classify as a 'nuclear weapon':

    nuclear missile
    nuclear bomb
    dirty bomb

    probably the ones with the word nuclear in front of them?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    This is a very strange, horrifying, yet important issue. Common consensus holds that were a nuclear weapon to be dropped anywhere in the world, retaliation would be inevitable, and a Third World War would soon follow. I find this a bit of a pessimistic stance really. It presents heads of state as a vengeful, rash, mindless, inhumane rabble, who don't contemplate the consequences of their actions. For any head of state contemplating retaliation would certainly understand that a nuclear war could potentially destroy all life on earth hundreds of times over (I guess nuclear disarmament has been reasonably helpful considering that during the Cold War era, the planet's nuclear arsenal was so great it could've destroyed all life on earth thousands of times over - I feel safe now :p:). Einstein famously said that "World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones". Indeed, the fact that such an outcome would cross the minds of heads of state makes one question whether any leader would launch a nuclear weapon ever. But, tbh, to say that it will never happen is probably just wishful thinking. There will be a nuclear weapon detonated one day. When this is is a different matter altogether.

    Discuss.
    If you're assuming true rationality, there would indeed be no reason for the leader of the nuked country to retaliate, since he'd get nothing from it. Yet if we're still assuming true rationality, then other leaders know this, and therefore have an incentive to nuke their enemies before they get nuked themselves, knowing that the costs of doing so would be nil. It's a paradox really. Mutually assured destruction rests on an assumption of some degree of irrationality.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2009
The home of Results and Clearing

2,442

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.